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

Re: [carfree_cities] Frequently Asked Questions

Expand Messages
  • Rob Hines
    I think these questions cover a lot of the bases but we should try to come up with more to make sure they cover all of the basic concepts outlined in Joel s
    Message 1 of 11 , May 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I think these questions cover a lot of the bases but we should try to
      come up with more to make sure they cover all of the basic concepts
      outlined in Joel's book. They could even be divided into sections that
      correspond to sections of the book.

      On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 11:12 PM, T. J. Binkley wrote:

      > Hi All,
      >
      > The responses have ceased trickling in, so forthwith a report:
      >
      > I sent out a request a couple of weeks ago for everyone to send in
      > questions that you'd like to see included on a forth-coming FAQ list for
      > the carfree cities site.
      >
      > I have received four responses, which included the following questions:
      >
      > 1. Can suburbs and other low density areas function using only rail
      > transportation?
      > 2. If streets are pedestrianized, how will businesses attain their
      > goods?
      > 3. Isn't pressuring people to use cars less an infringement on their
      > individual wants?
      > 4. Won't it take longer to travel by metro instead of by car?
      > 5. How would the carfree city deal with crime that is common to higher
      > density cities?
      > 6. In a carfree city what will the over-all pubic transit experience
      > encompass? (Here, conceptions of public transit as third rate could be
      > dealt with)
      > 7. I know cars pollute the environment but is that enough to justify
      > carfree cities?
      > 8. Carfree development---Will it work? Will it create better quality of
      > life? How does it get
      > measured?
      > 9. We have a pedestrian mall in a city neighborhood that died when the
      > cars were removed,
      > some decades ago. Now, removal of cars seems to mean the death of a
      > neighborhood. It was done poorly then. Why will it be better now?
      > 10. What are some of the lesser known externalized costs of the
      > automobile? Could better awareness of these costs (such as the noise,
      > bad
      > architecture and ugly public
      > spaces which result from automobile-oriented development) help build
      > support for carfree development?
      > 11. When are we going to get organized, pick a site, and get
      > building/rebuilding?
      > 12. For most people, the idea of even slightly REDUCING the amount of
      > driving they do is incomprehensible. How do you expect many people to
      > give
      > up driving altogether?
      > 13. Where can I find a local (& active) group that is interested in
      > carfree development?
      >
      > Who would like to begin writing the answers to these questions?
      >
      > What other questions should be included? Surely more of you have some
      > thoughts on this: Simon? Will? Mike? Karen?
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
      > T.J.
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-
      > unsubscribe@...
      > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Andras Toth
      Hello, I would add the following question to the FAQ: Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That sounds like nonsense. Cycling is
      Message 2 of 11 , May 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        I would add the following question to the FAQ:

        "Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That
        sounds like nonsense. Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
        breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
        because it does not shield you if there is an accident. In addition, the
        bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
        and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
        children, and does not offer any protection against weather! How could it
        be a realistic alternative?"

        I realize the answer requires a whole essay but most people really think
        that way about cycling, and need to be informed.

        Andras Toth
      • Henning Mortensen
        ... I know Andras is possing questions which may be asked by others. Take these answers as being to some other, and not to Andras. ... I believe there is a
        Message 3 of 11 , May 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >From: Andras Toth <toth_andras@...>

          I know Andras is possing questions which may be asked by others. Take these
          answers as being to some other, and not to Andras.

          >" Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
          >breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
          >because it does not shield you if there is an accident.


          I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
          health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
          more from car fumes. I believe the hypothesis is that because you are
          breathing deeper and more vigorously the crud does not settle in your lungs.
          Anyone have the citation? And of course, in a car free city, exhaust fumes
          would be limited to carbon dioxide exhaled by others.

          As for the safety with regards to accidents, it must be noted that a bicycle
          is a very safe vehicle. The statistics bear this out. Simply remove
          accidents involving bikes where such accident is a collision with a car, and
          all of a sudden it becomes clear that short of the very rare head trauma
          death sustained from falling at high speeds, a bike is far safer then a car.
          In my local area, we had a death rate of 1:5000 people, due to car
          accidents. In my country, the national average is 1:10000. This is people
          killed in a single year in motor vehicle accidents. Surely bikes are much
          safer then this, especially in a car free environment. (actual stats on bike
          deaths here would help)

          >bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
          >and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
          >children,

          That it takes effort to bike I can not argue. It requires effort to breath
          also. Skyrocketing obesity rates not withstanding, all of us would do well
          to expend more effort.

          As for range, sweat, and dirt it must be noted that in a carfree city all
          distances would be remarkably reduced, transit would augment longer rides,
          and of course a city with more inhabitants outside, would presumably be
          cleaner.

          A set of pannier bags will easily carry home your groceries, and children
          can be transported in trailers, in bike seats, with one wheeled bike
          trailers or on their own bikes. Biking as a family can be both enjoyable and
          efficient.


          >and does not offer any protection against weather!

          Here I agree, weather can be a pain, but so is traffic.

          >How could it be a realistic alternative?

          Many people are already doing it with-out major hardship, give it a try you
          will love the freedom and community you feel.

          >
          >I realize the answer requires a whole essay but most people really think
          >that way about cycling, and need to be informed.

          agreed!
          Henning Mortensen




          _________________________________________________________________
          Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
        • J.H. Crawford
          ... Bicycling is actually not required in a carfree city. Walking is, and public transport usage is, for longer distances, but a carfree city can exist without
          Message 4 of 11 , May 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Andras Toth said:


            >"Some people say we should cycle instead of driving a car in town. That
            >sounds like nonsense. Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
            >breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
            >because it does not shield you if there is an accident. In addition, the
            >bicycle requires effort, is slow, does not take you far, gets you sweaty
            >and dirty, cannot be safely parked, cannot transport your shopping and
            >children, and does not offer any protection against weather! How could it
            >be a realistic alternative?"

            Bicycling is actually not required in a carfree city. Walking is, and
            public transport usage is, for longer distances, but a carfree city
            can exist without bicycles, as does Venice.


            I'm keeping a list of this stuff so far, but I can't take on the
            long-term management of a FAQ. I've just got too much else to do,
            including finishing work on the book-length City Design section of
            Carfree.com. So, we need a volunteer.



            -- ### --

            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            mailbox@... Carfree.com
          • J.H. Crawford
            ... This appears to be because exhaust fumes somehow tend to concentrate in cars--the actual interior air quality is appreciably worse than the outside air.
            Message 5 of 11 , May 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Henning Mortensen replied:

              >>From: Andras Toth <toth_andras@...>

              >>" Cycling is dangerous for your health because you
              >>breathe in exhaust fumes from cars directly and more intensely, and also
              >>because it does not shield you if there is an accident.
              >
              >
              >I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
              >health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
              >more from car fumes.

              This appears to be because exhaust fumes somehow tend to concentrate
              in cars--the actual interior air quality is appreciably worse than
              the outside air.

              >As for the safety with regards to accidents, it must be noted that a bicycle
              >is a very safe vehicle.

              Not really. When forced to ride in traffic, biking is statistically
              considerably much more dangerous than driving (walking is worse still).
              This is, of course, because of vehicular traffic. (The statistics
              are on the basis of distance travelled, not years.)

              The Dutch have determined, however, that biking is a net pubilc health
              gain, because the extra exercize is so healthy. This is, of course,
              in a society where the air is generally fairly good (when the wind
              isn't blowing out of the Ruhr Valley), car traffic in cities is
              moderate, and there is a long tradition of biking, with virtually
              every family owning and using bikes regularly.




              -- ### --

              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
              mailbox@... Carfree.com
            • Mark Rauterkus
              Housekeeping @ FAQ Hi All, As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we need the answers.
              Message 6 of 11 , May 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Housekeeping @ FAQ


                Hi All,

                As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we
                need the answers. <;O

                The FAQ & A could be put into the public domain -- or put under a most
                liberal copyright and reuse license, such as the Design Science License
                (www.dsl.org). Then others can freely repost and make modifications.

                A WEB DAV or CVS tree can be established so others can be trusted users to
                add and adjust the contributions. Distributed editing and updates. A
                threaded discussion board may work less well as would a "moderated"
                NEWSGROUP.

                The email discussion group (this) could have a policy that folks working on
                the FAQ content make the sumbission with the Subject line: SUMMARY.

                We might be able to organize / maintain the publi FAQ & A with a new venture
                I'm pitching in my area -- a Community Learning Outreach Hub (
                http://CLOH.Org ). But, that hand-off won't come about until Sept-Oct 2003.

                Thanks for all you do!

                Ta.

                Mark Rauterkus
                mark@... http://Rauterkus.com
              • J.H. Crawford
                ... Let s just call it the FAQ, since that s the normal name. It always comes with answers! ... I agree, I don t think it should be copyrighted at all. ... I
                Message 7 of 11 , May 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark Rauterkus said:

                  >As to the FAQ, please make it FAQ & As. The questions are a start, but we
                  >need the answers. <;O

                  Let's just call it the FAQ, since that's the normal name. It always
                  comes with answers!

                  >The FAQ & A could be put into the public domain.

                  I agree, I don't think it should be copyrighted at all.

                  >A WEB DAV or CVS tree can be established so others can be trusted users to
                  >add and adjust the contributions. Distributed editing and updates. A
                  >threaded discussion board may work less well as would a "moderated"
                  >NEWSGROUP.

                  I don't know how this works.

                  >The email discussion group (this) could have a policy that folks working on
                  >the FAQ content make the sumbission with the Subject line: SUMMARY.

                  That's a big ambiguous, let's just use "FAQ", which is not.

                  >We might be able to organize / maintain the publi FAQ & A with a new venture
                  >I'm pitching in my area -- a Community Learning Outreach Hub (
                  >http://CLOH.Org ). But, that hand-off won't come about until Sept-Oct 2003.

                  Keep us posted. I think for now it should be fairly simple, not more
                  than 20 questions, and as far as I'm concerned, it could go on the
                  new Carfree Institute site. Carfree.com would host it, of course, if
                  need be.

                  Regards,



                  -- ### --

                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                  mailbox@... Carfree.com
                • T. J. Binkley
                  ... Yes. It has been demonstrated that exhaust fumes get concentrated in a car s interior---therefore a pedestrian standing outside the car may be breathing
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    >
                    >I believe there is a study somewhere on carfree.com which contradicts the
                    >health issue quite clearly indicating that people in cars actually suffer
                    >more from car fumes.

                    Yes. It has been demonstrated that exhaust fumes get concentrated in a
                    car's interior---therefore a pedestrian standing outside the car may be
                    breathing in less toxic air. Not so sure about a vigorously breathing
                    cyclist or jogger though...

                    >I believe the hypothesis is that because you are
                    >breathing deeper and more vigorously the crud does not settle in your lungs.

                    ...actually breathing deeper and more vigorously DOES cause more of the
                    crud to irritate your lungs. This was demonstrated by recent studies
                    linking increased asthma incidence in urban children, and even higher
                    incidence in urban children who participate in lots of outdoor sports.

                    >Anyone have the citation?

                    Data on air quality inside cars:
                    Gee I.L. and Raper D.W., 'Commuter exposure to respirable particles inside
                    buses and by bicycle', The Science of the Total Environment, 235, 403-405
                    (1999)
                    Kingham S., Meaton J., Sheard A. and Lawrenson O., 'Assessment of exposure to
                    traffic-related fumes during the journey to work', Transpn Res.-D, vol 3 no
                    4, 271-274 (1998)
                    Lawryk, N. J. and Weisel, C. P., 'Concentrations of volatile organic
                    compounds in
                    passenger compartments of automobiles', Environmental Science Technology
                    30, 810-816 (1996)
                    Van Wijnen, J. H., Verhoeff, A. P., Jans, H. W. A. and van Bruggen, M.,
                    'The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to traffic-related
                    air pollutants', International Archives of
                    Environmental Health 67, 187-193 (1995)
                    --
                    Dr Adrian Croucher
                    Department of Engineering Science
                    University of Auckland
                    New Zealand
                    tel 64-9-373-7599 ext 4611


                    A. Exclusive Official study shows that air pollution causes the
                    disease affecting 5m Britons
                    By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
                    Pollution from car exhausts causes asthma, dramatic new official research
                    shows.
                    A massive study, backed by the Californian and US governments, has
                    demonstrated for the first time that ozone, the main component of smog, can
                    cause healthy children to develop the life-threatening condition. Top
                    British scientists believe it has provided the "smoking gun" that finally
                    links pollution to the disease.
                    The conclusion - which vindicates an Independent on Sunday campaign that
                    began more than eight years ago - is likely to have an explosive effect on
                    transport and health policy in Britain, which suffers from the highest
                    incidence of asthma in Europe.
                    It comes as the Government's own chief scientific adviser, Professor David
                    King, calls for a ban on the sale of petrol and diesel, a measure that
                    would drastically reduce the pollutants that cause asthma and global
                    warming. He says announcing a ban to take effect some years in the future
                    would force companies to develop "green" cars running on electricity and
                    hydrogen.
                    More than one in every seven children in the country now suffers from
                    asthma - six times as many as 25 years ago - and, in all, five million
                    Britons have the disease: 18,000 new cases are diagnosed each week, and
                    1,500 people die from it every year.
                    Yet the Government has done little to tackle the pollution now being
                    identified as one of the causes of the epidemic. Ozone is excluded from
                    national measures being implemented by local authorities to tackle
                    contaminated air.
                    Scientists have long agreed that ozone exacerbates the disease in those who
                    have it, and many have suspected that it causes it in the first place. But
                    in the absence of proof there has been little political interest in
                    tackling it. The new study breaks the impasse.
                    "We have known for some time that smog can trigger attacks in asthmatics,"
                    says Alan C Lloyd, California's top air pollution official. "This study
                    has shown that ozone can cause asthma as well."
                    Professor Rob McConnell of the University of Southern California, the
                    leading author of the study, and his colleagues made the connection by
                    mounting the first study of its kind into the disease in children. They
                    identified 3,535 children aged nine and over, with no history of asthma,
                    living in both smoggy and relatively unpolluted towns and suburbs, and
                    recorded what happen to them over the next five years.
                    Uniquely, they took particular notice of how much sport the children
                    played. Sporty children are exposed to more air pollution, both because
                    they spend more time outdoors and because vigorous exercise makes them
                    breathe 17 times faster, and draws air deeper into the lungs.
                    They found that children who played three or more sports in smoggy areas
                    were more than three times more likely to get asthma than equally active
                    children in relatively unpolluted ones. Less sporty children in polluted
                    towns and suburbs were also more likely to get the disease, though not to
                    the same extent.
                    Top British experts last week hailed the study as a breakthrough. "It is
                    very, very important - the first paper I know of that suggests that
                    pollution may cause asthma," said Dr John Ayres, professor of respiratory
                    medicine at the University of Birmingham.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.