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

Personal transport (was Homer)

Expand Messages
  • Andrea Casalotti
    ... Notwithstanding the valid objection made by Turpin that energy will unlikely be expensive in the future, the most appropriate means of personal transport,
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 2, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike Harrington wrote:
      > Personal transportation will be prohibitively expensive for all but the
      > most wealthy,

      Notwithstanding the valid objection made by Turpin that energy will
      unlikely be expensive in the future, the most appropriate means of personal
      transport, the bicycle is likely to remain inexpensive.
      --
      Andrea Casalotti

      ZERO

      7 Plympton St
      London NW8 8AB

      020 7723 2409
      zero@...

      www.zeroisbest.com


      -----------


      Vive le velorution!
      velorution.blogspot.com
    • Mike Harrington
      Walking, too, will remain pretty cheap, for that matter. There is a problem with advocating bicycles as the primary means of getting around. How about if it
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Walking, too, will remain pretty cheap, for that matter.

        There is a problem with advocating bicycles as the primary means of getting
        around. How about if it is raining, or snowing, or in the blazing southern
        sun when it is 108­­° F? Those might be acceptable conditions for some, but
        for the aged, infirm, and very young those are not options. What if you
        need to travel twenty miles? How many people go on a twenty-mile radius
        with their bicycle? One solution is to build a much greater number of
        transit vehicles than exist today, both rail and bus, with increased space
        allocated for on-board bike storage, so you can use a bike for part of your
        trip.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Andrea Casalotti" <andrea@...>
        To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:17 AM
        Subject: [carfree_cities] Personal transport (was Homer)


        > Mike Harrington wrote:
        > > Personal transportation will be prohibitively expensive for all but the
        > > most wealthy,
        >
        > Notwithstanding the valid objection made by Turpin that energy will
        > unlikely be expensive in the future, the most appropriate means of
        personal
        > transport, the bicycle is likely to remain inexpensive.
        > --
        > Andrea Casalotti
        >
        > ZERO
        >
        > 7 Plympton St
        > London NW8 8AB
        >
        > 020 7723 2409
        > zero@...
        >
        > www.zeroisbest.com
        >
        >
        > -----------
        >
        >
        > Vive le velorution!
        > velorution.blogspot.com
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >
        >
      • turpin <turpin@yahoo.com>
        ... Cheap, healthy, pleasant, and versatile. Cities should support walking as the primary mode of transportation. It s biology. It s how we evolved to move.
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...> wrote:
          > Walking, too, will remain pretty
          > cheap, for that matter.

          Cheap, healthy, pleasant, and versatile.
          Cities should support walking as the
          primary mode of transportation. It's
          biology. It's how we evolved to move.

          > What if you need to travel twenty
          > miles? How many people go on a twenty-
          > mile radius with their bicycle?

          With respect to cities, some would argue
          that if you ever have to travel twenty
          miles between two destinations, things
          are already broken. Cities sprawl to
          that extent only when the government
          builds a car infrastructure and
          implements development policies that
          encourage it.

          As an aside, and marking myself as a
          heretic here, I enjoy car travel BETWEEN
          cities. The big problem with highways is
          not their use to get from one city to
          another, but their use for transport
          WITHIN a city, and how that shapes the
          urban environment. Of course, one can
          get into all sorts of discussion about
          how the highway system warped cross-
          country transportation, and the various
          effects of that. For cities, I think the
          primary and most harmful effect came
          from building highways through cities,
          and allowing highway use for local
          transportation. Cities then grew along
          the highways. There are modest-sized
          towns in Arkansas that are ten miles
          long and three blocks wide. These cities
          are broken. It's hard to see how they
          will ever accomodate any mode of
          transportation that isn't centered on
          the highway that serves as their
          backbone.
        • Mike Harrington
          Actually, suburbs were built by rail, not automobiles. For several decades the only way to get to and from from any suburban town in the US was by interurban
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually, suburbs were built by rail, not automobiles. For several decades
            the only way to get to and from from any suburban town in the US was by
            interurban trolley or railroad. Just about every suburban town around Los
            Angeles up to and including Riverside was originally developed by suburban
            trolley, years before there was any highway system there. You see that in
            suburban Dallas. Richardson and Plano, seen from the expressway, look like
            today's typical sprawling suburbs. But if you get a mile away from the
            freeway, you'll find that they still have viable little urban cores
            surrounded by single-family residences built mostly before the 1950's. Fast
            rail service has actually restored the importance of those old suburban town
            centers, inspiring both building restoration and new traditional,
            pedestrian-oriented construction in the vicinty of the rail stations. By
            traditional I mean appartments on city streets with walk-in businesses on
            the first floor.

            Carfree Cities is a concept that is naturally extensible to suburbs. Things
            aren't necessarily "broken" if you have to travel twenty miles. What if my
            daughter wants to go see her aunt in the suburbs? Nowadays, I'd have to
            drive her, but in the 1940's she could have ridden there herself by train or
            trolley. We're actually much, much worse off than then.

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <turpin@...>
            To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 11:56 AM
            Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Personal transport (was Homer)


            > "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...> wrote:
            > > Walking, too, will remain pretty
            > > cheap, for that matter.
            >
            > Cheap, healthy, pleasant, and versatile.
            > Cities should support walking as the
            > primary mode of transportation. It's
            > biology. It's how we evolved to move.
            >
            > > What if you need to travel twenty
            > > miles? How many people go on a twenty-
            > > mile radius with their bicycle?
            >
            > With respect to cities, some would argue
            > that if you ever have to travel twenty
            > miles between two destinations, things
            > are already broken. Cities sprawl to
            > that extent only when the government
            > builds a car infrastructure and
            > implements development policies that
            > encourage it.

            > As an aside, and marking myself as a
            > heretic here, I enjoy car travel BETWEEN
            > cities. The big problem with highways is
            > not their use to get from one city to
            > another, but their use for transport
            > WITHIN a city, and how that shapes the
            > urban environment. Of course, one can
            > get into all sorts of discussion about
            > how the highway system warped cross-
            > country transportation, and the various
            > effects of that. For cities, I think the
            > primary and most harmful effect came
            > from building highways through cities,
            > and allowing highway use for local
            > transportation. Cities then grew along
            > the highways. There are modest-sized
            > towns in Arkansas that are ten miles
            > long and three blocks wide. These cities
            > are broken. It's hard to see how they
            > will ever accomodate any mode of
            > transportation that isn't centered on
            > the highway that serves as their
            > backbone.
            >
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.