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

Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities

Expand Messages
  • turpin
    ... For me, the issue is simply that walking is the best way to get about for daily purposes, best in terms of health, convenience, pleasure, and community.
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      "dubluth" <dubluth@y...> wrote:
      > Suppose that energy prices
      > continue along their long
      > run decline in sharp
      > contradiction to predictions
      > of diminishing supply. Will
      > car-free cities be any less
      > attractive?

      For me, the issue is simply
      that walking is the best way
      to get about for daily purposes,
      "best" in terms of health,
      convenience, pleasure, and
      community. Living someplace
      where I have to drive for
      ordinary purposes is a distinct
      detriment. The issue is one of
      urban architecture, not
      international energy economics.

      Most of the Cassandras who
      forecast an energy crunch, such
      as Jay Hanson, confuse energy
      with oil. Oil is simply the
      energy supply which is NOW the
      most economic. Will we run
      into limits of oil? Absolutely.
      But long before that happens,
      the economy will shift to other
      sources of energy. Today the
      most obvious is nuclear. But
      all sorts of alternative
      sources, from tidal to nanotech
      chlorosynthesis, might also
      become economic. Yeah, energy
      prices will have short-term
      spikes, some triggering
      technology transitions. Such
      spikes will be temporary. In
      2100, I have no idea where we
      will get most of our energy.
      But I also have no doubt that
      its cost per joule will be
      less than it is now, as
      measured by common labor.

      The notion that everything
      will change because we run out
      of energy is a dystopic
      pipedream. It does NOT come
      from the scientific community.
      From the physicist's viewpoint,
      we are surrounded by and
      bathed in vast reserves of
      energy that dwarf the world's
      petroleum reserves. To the
      physicist, the issue isn't
      energy, but practicality, i.e.,
      economics. That hasn't stopped
      science cranks from imagining
      an absolute energy crunch, or
      blathering nonsense about
      entropy. (Jeremy Rifkin was the
      popular crank in the 80s. He
      wrote a book titled "Entropy,"
      but couldn't even get its
      definition correct. He followed
      this up with a crank book
      disproving evolution.)
    • Simon Baddeley
      x-post from CarFree-yahoo in response to turpin s posting Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities ... From: Simon Baddeley To:
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        x-post from CarFree-yahoo in response to turpin's posting Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree cities

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Simon Baddeley
        To: CarFree@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:38 PM
        Subject: Demise of auto-flânerie - was "delightful web site"


        There is an article in a recent arts magazine from the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham which argues that "auto-flânerie" is now virtually impossible because unlike walking and cycling the car is now - through its evolving internal telemetry and the external legal technical framework that increasingly regulates motorised traffic - incapable of escaping the matrix of cash transactions - whether with the market or with tax systems. Road congestion - taxed or untaxed, monitored or not - is a further set of nails in the coffin of auto-flânerie.

        The great age of the car was when motor touring on near empty roads was feasible and hugely enjoyable - e.g. when cars were primarily toys of the rich. Now auto-flânerie can only be practised by illegal behaviour where the primary source of pleasure lies in evading increasingly burdensome laws to protect motorists from each other. Our courts are almost overwhelmed by the times and costs of dealing with traffic offences. A further intrusion - often actively welcomed by the participants - is to become the object of video surveillance while law breaking and see oneself later on national and sometimes global channels where one is helping TV companies to profit.

        I took to walking and cycling for work (rather than only for leisure) after a wonderful motoring holiday in the Peloponnese about 6 years ago. I and my family experienced long stretches of empty roads through serene olive groves and accessible places by sea and mountain and in villages which in the UK are barred to cars either by regulation or by congestion or both.

        Driving a car in UK presages a future where car driving will be more like flying than walking or cycling. To get from A to B I can imagine drivers having to submit a "flight plan" and be given a highway slot possibly with a convoy, unless the car-driver is to face complete prohibition or expensive congestion.

        The future I seek is access by proximity rather than access by mobility - cycling and walking across less sprawled human settlements.

        The carfree city needs to be located in a much larger car free terrain.

        Regards

        S
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Rachel
        To: CarFree@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:09 PM
        Subject: [CF] Re: delightful web site


        Great website. I much prefer walking to biking but most info you
        find on walking is the exercise angle and I just enjoy walking and
        enjoying the city. I've found that you get a different view (scale?)
        with each mode of transportation, biking, walking, transit or in a
        car, that sees things that you never really notice with the other
        modes.

        --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, De Clarke <de@u...> wrote:
        >
        > hat tip to Simon B who posted this to Brompton-talk.
        >
        > http://www.flaneur.org/flanifesto.html


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • michael.coy@fuse.net
        I believe the laws of supply and demand have quite a bit to say about resource depletion. As supply approaches zero, price goes through the roof, even with
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I believe the laws of supply and demand have quite a bit to say about resource depletion. As supply approaches zero, price goes through the roof, even with constant demand. As we approach this energy pinch, it will make economic sense to research alternative energy. There will be fortunes to be made off of it. I expect that with that kind of motivation, some other form of energy will be made to suit our needs.

          While our current infrastructure is certainly dependant on oil, it would probably be MUCH cheaper, faster, and politically feasable to modify this infrastructure for a new energy source, rather than to develop new cities on the carfree model. Therefore, I think we need to be careful not to depend too much on this coming oil crisis. Carfree cities are a solution but they are not the only one.

          The quality of life issues alone justify a carfree environment in my mind.

          -Mike



          On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 12:36:57PM -0500, Mike Harrington wrote:
          > It's not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming. Peak
          > petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
          > economists think or do, and there is no precedent in history for it.
          > Economists think the market will take care of all energy problems but
          > depletion isn't built into their models. Therefore, all modern economic
          > thinking is flawed and retrospective, and never takes into account that the
          > days of cheap energy will come to end, particularly in North America where
          > the double whammy of natural gas shortages hangs over everyone's head. In
          > short, the two elements necessary for urban sprawl, cheap oil and cheap
          > electricity, ultimately disappear.
          >
          > The holders of oil resources know that a decline in petroleum production is
          > inevitable, and undoubtedly expect an inflationary enhancement in the value
          > of their remaining inventories when demand exceeds supply. Oil wells
          > typically decline at a rate of 2-3% a year after peak production. But oil
          > company employees never go public until their retirement, so don't look to
          > Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco for any answers. The chart on world oil
          > demand under "Uninterrupted Progress" is not sustainable for the long term:
          > http://qv3.com/policypete/policypete.htm
          >
          > I certainly wouldn't deny that there are other reasons for a carfree
          > lifestyle besides energy conservation and the certainty of a long-term
          > energy price increase: little noise and air pollution, the convenience of
          > walking instead of driving, the fact that walking and cycling are healthy
          > exercise, the importance of living in a community where you meet your
          > neighbors face to face instead of the sterile isolation of
          > automobile-oriented neighborhoods, the extra $8000 each year that foregoing
          > an automobile provides, the freedom from the ever-present danger of auto
          > accidents. I'll wager I've been in tune to the car free concept a lot
          > longer than you have. If you don't want to talk about energy, or want to
          > rehash the thinking of twentieth-century economists about energy, although I
          > can't imagine why you would ever care what an economist has to say about oil
          > production, that's your business. I think that we're approaching a pretty
          > deep abyss, and that's my business.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "dubluth" <dubluth@...>
          > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:55 PM
          > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree
          > cities
          >
          >
          > > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...>
          > wrote:
          > > > It really looks like we're at the end of an age, and most of the
          > > > twenty-first century will be drastically different than the
          > >
          > >
          > > Military aggression and the prelude to that aggression in the land of
          > relatively accessible energy resources has justifiably captured a fair
          > amount of our attention over the past weeks. Now it seems that "oil
          > consciousness" is alive on this list. With that I suggest a question that
          > has been asked before.
          > >
          > > The hypothetical situation for the following question is one some won't
          > care to consider, but for the rest: Suppose that energy prices continue
          > along their long run decline in sharp contradiction to predictions of
          > diminishing supply. Will car-free cities be any less attractive? Will they
          > even be less attractive than car-full cities?
          > >
          > > In the past, Joel Crawford and others have said that car-free cities have
          > merit independant oil scarcity. As I understand it, the principle reasons
          > have nothing to do with concerns about the internal functioning of markets
          > for commodities, such as oil. Some specific reasons include external costs
          > like noise, air pollution, and visual blight created by automobiles. In
          > general, a car-free city is a human settlement where social value would grow
          > without being excessively drained by the demands and impositions of the
          > transportation system. If expectations about the desirability of car-free
          > cities hold up to examination, the price of oil isn't _as_ relevant as
          > someone concerned with oil will tend to believe.
          > >
          > > If car-free development is still desirable in the way described, yet only
          > occurs because of the specter of decreasing oil supplies, institutions
          > (including this list) have little to show regarding their ability to address
          > human needs. (I also wouldn't count on car-free cities being a necessary
          > result of motor fuel becoming too expensive for most Americans. If people
          > aren't capable of organizing to rid themselves of the wheeled bane of
          > cities, can they organize a city (in a relatively equitable structure like
          > that envisioned by Joel Crawford) once most realize they can no longer
          > afford to keep pump gas into their automobile? With plenty of conventional
          > urban problems in need of attention, that question is too speculative for me
          > to engage.)
          > >
          > > Suppose we conclude that energy supplies are going to decrease, with
          > resulting increases in price. Will we be showing more wisdom than energy
          > producers? I won't say that that is impossible, but energy company
          > economists and engineers have access to the info found on the die-off web
          > site. If they believe the information, they will put it to use if that
          > means greater profits. Suppose an oil company anticipates a decrease in
          > world energy supplies as predicted. Would oil companies choose to pump and
          > sell all the oil they can pump that will return at least as much in sales on
          > the current market as the cost of pumping? Except for OPEC, doing exactly
          > this is standard practice. (OPEC countries agree on, but don't necessarily
          > comply with, production quotas in an attempt to influence the world price of
          > oil). The competitive tendency is to send any pumped oil to the market,
          > rather than save it. That indicates that oil isn't used as a store of
          > value. Unless energy company owners don't value their own future
          > consumption, they would save oil for sale in the future if the time
          > discounted return on those sales is greater than the current yield from a
          > portfolio of other investments with equal risk. The fact that oil isn't
          > used as a store of value suggests that energy producers don't believe that
          > energy supplies will fall in the future and create a price rise.
          > >
          > > It is hard to dismiss data regarding trends in the oil discovery rates,
          > the consumption growth rate, and humans' dependance on energy intensive
          > agriculture, distribution, etc. It perfectly suggests the S shaped growth
          > curve of a population in a resource constrained media. However, even with
          > an excessively high discount rate, market forces will tend to prevent the
          > total exhaustion of any essential input that is subject to ownership. For
          > that reason, the economist in me doesn't worry about gas, oil, or coal
          > exhaustion. On the other hand, we share the costs of damaging the climate
          > regulating properties of the atmosphere and of depleting other resources
          > that aren't subject to ownership. Because the costs are shared, individuals
          > don't have an incentive to invest in (not deplete) shared resources. The
          > problem isn't one of starving for an input but of suffocating in wastes.
          > >
          > > Here is the institutional challenge that requires broad collaboration for
          > our common good. Can the public come to agreement on implementing
          > mechanisms that will optimally control pollution. Can we design our cities
          > to best accomodate human needs and meet broader environmental goals? At
          > present, our difficulty is exemplified by the current administration's
          > devotion to beating back standards for environmental and public resource
          > protection. (That policy preference happens to also favor a lower user
          > price of energy because environmental quality is an input necessary for any
          > energy output coming from the combustion of oil, coal, or, to a lesser
          > extent, natural gas).
          > >
          > > A lot of practical political know-how is necessary to advance a
          > legislative agenda. In addition, some more specialized knowledge of policy
          > tools is needed to advance a benefit-optimizing program for environmental
          > quality and common resource protection. Energy companies employ
          > considerable political expertise to fight public health and environmental
          > protection. A public that recognizes its interests and cares about future
          > generations would offset the power of the despoilers.
          > >
          > > Bill Carr
          > >
          > >
          > > 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/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
        • Mike Harrington
          It s not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming. Peak petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            It's not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming. Peak
            petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
            economists think or do, and there is no precedent in history for it.
            Economists think the market will take care of all energy problems but
            depletion isn't built into their models. Therefore, all modern economic
            thinking is flawed and retrospective, and never takes into account that the
            days of cheap energy will come to end, particularly in North America where
            the double whammy of natural gas shortages hangs over everyone's head. In
            short, the two elements necessary for urban sprawl, cheap oil and cheap
            electricity, ultimately disappear.

            The holders of oil resources know that a decline in petroleum production is
            inevitable, and undoubtedly expect an inflationary enhancement in the value
            of their remaining inventories when demand exceeds supply. Oil wells
            typically decline at a rate of 2-3% a year after peak production. But oil
            company employees never go public until their retirement, so don't look to
            Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco for any answers. The chart on world oil
            demand under "Uninterrupted Progress" is not sustainable for the long term:
            http://qv3.com/policypete/policypete.htm

            I certainly wouldn't deny that there are other reasons for a carfree
            lifestyle besides energy conservation and the certainty of a long-term
            energy price increase: little noise and air pollution, the convenience of
            walking instead of driving, the fact that walking and cycling are healthy
            exercise, the importance of living in a community where you meet your
            neighbors face to face instead of the sterile isolation of
            automobile-oriented neighborhoods, the extra $8000 each year that foregoing
            an automobile provides, the freedom from the ever-present danger of auto
            accidents. I'll wager I've been in tune to the car free concept a lot
            longer than you have. If you don't want to talk about energy, or want to
            rehash the thinking of twentieth-century economists about energy, although I
            can't imagine why you would ever care what an economist has to say about oil
            production, that's your business. I think that we're approaching a pretty
            deep abyss, and that's my business.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "dubluth" <dubluth@...>
            To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 8:55 PM
            Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree
            cities


            > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Harrington" <mike@p...>
            wrote:
            > > It really looks like we're at the end of an age, and most of the
            > > twenty-first century will be drastically different than the
            >
            >
            > Military aggression and the prelude to that aggression in the land of
            relatively accessible energy resources has justifiably captured a fair
            amount of our attention over the past weeks. Now it seems that "oil
            consciousness" is alive on this list. With that I suggest a question that
            has been asked before.
            >
            > The hypothetical situation for the following question is one some won't
            care to consider, but for the rest: Suppose that energy prices continue
            along their long run decline in sharp contradiction to predictions of
            diminishing supply. Will car-free cities be any less attractive? Will they
            even be less attractive than car-full cities?
            >
            > In the past, Joel Crawford and others have said that car-free cities have
            merit independant oil scarcity. As I understand it, the principle reasons
            have nothing to do with concerns about the internal functioning of markets
            for commodities, such as oil. Some specific reasons include external costs
            like noise, air pollution, and visual blight created by automobiles. In
            general, a car-free city is a human settlement where social value would grow
            without being excessively drained by the demands and impositions of the
            transportation system. If expectations about the desirability of car-free
            cities hold up to examination, the price of oil isn't _as_ relevant as
            someone concerned with oil will tend to believe.
            >
            > If car-free development is still desirable in the way described, yet only
            occurs because of the specter of decreasing oil supplies, institutions
            (including this list) have little to show regarding their ability to address
            human needs. (I also wouldn't count on car-free cities being a necessary
            result of motor fuel becoming too expensive for most Americans. If people
            aren't capable of organizing to rid themselves of the wheeled bane of
            cities, can they organize a city (in a relatively equitable structure like
            that envisioned by Joel Crawford) once most realize they can no longer
            afford to keep pump gas into their automobile? With plenty of conventional
            urban problems in need of attention, that question is too speculative for me
            to engage.)
            >
            > Suppose we conclude that energy supplies are going to decrease, with
            resulting increases in price. Will we be showing more wisdom than energy
            producers? I won't say that that is impossible, but energy company
            economists and engineers have access to the info found on the die-off web
            site. If they believe the information, they will put it to use if that
            means greater profits. Suppose an oil company anticipates a decrease in
            world energy supplies as predicted. Would oil companies choose to pump and
            sell all the oil they can pump that will return at least as much in sales on
            the current market as the cost of pumping? Except for OPEC, doing exactly
            this is standard practice. (OPEC countries agree on, but don't necessarily
            comply with, production quotas in an attempt to influence the world price of
            oil). The competitive tendency is to send any pumped oil to the market,
            rather than save it. That indicates that oil isn't used as a store of
            value. Unless energy company owners don't value their own future
            consumption, they would save oil for sale in the future if the time
            discounted return on those sales is greater than the current yield from a
            portfolio of other investments with equal risk. The fact that oil isn't
            used as a store of value suggests that energy producers don't believe that
            energy supplies will fall in the future and create a price rise.
            >
            > It is hard to dismiss data regarding trends in the oil discovery rates,
            the consumption growth rate, and humans' dependance on energy intensive
            agriculture, distribution, etc. It perfectly suggests the S shaped growth
            curve of a population in a resource constrained media. However, even with
            an excessively high discount rate, market forces will tend to prevent the
            total exhaustion of any essential input that is subject to ownership. For
            that reason, the economist in me doesn't worry about gas, oil, or coal
            exhaustion. On the other hand, we share the costs of damaging the climate
            regulating properties of the atmosphere and of depleting other resources
            that aren't subject to ownership. Because the costs are shared, individuals
            don't have an incentive to invest in (not deplete) shared resources. The
            problem isn't one of starving for an input but of suffocating in wastes.
            >
            > Here is the institutional challenge that requires broad collaboration for
            our common good. Can the public come to agreement on implementing
            mechanisms that will optimally control pollution. Can we design our cities
            to best accomodate human needs and meet broader environmental goals? At
            present, our difficulty is exemplified by the current administration's
            devotion to beating back standards for environmental and public resource
            protection. (That policy preference happens to also favor a lower user
            price of energy because environmental quality is an input necessary for any
            energy output coming from the combustion of oil, coal, or, to a lesser
            extent, natural gas).
            >
            > A lot of practical political know-how is necessary to advance a
            legislative agenda. In addition, some more specialized knowledge of policy
            tools is needed to advance a benefit-optimizing program for environmental
            quality and common resource protection. Energy companies employ
            considerable political expertise to fight public health and environmental
            protection. A public that recognizes its interests and cares about future
            generations would offset the power of the despoilers.
            >
            > Bill Carr
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >
          • Simon Baddeley
            If cars retain their psychological charge they ll continue - wind powered, solar powered, nuclear steam or electrically powered. Shortage of fossil fuels will
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              If cars retain their psychological charge they'll continue - wind powered,
              solar powered, nuclear steam or electrically powered. Shortage of fossil
              fuels will not mean their demise so long as cars remain objects of desire.

              If that desire degrades - and it already takes a massive amount of marketing
              to keep people interested, especially in annual buying - the pool of those
              for whom the car retains a psychological charge will diminish to a
              specialist population of hobbyists without political power to influence
              transport or land use policies.

              Horse transport did not decline because of a shortage of horses, nor
              railways because of a shortage of raw materials, inventiveness or design
              skill. The car, with help from its manufacturers and friends in government,
              became, for a century, a more convenient, more attractive and more exciting
              way to get about for many people, whose choices to use cars became
              conditioned by settlement and retailing patterns that first presented
              themselves as a new type of liberty - access by mobility. This form of
              freedom, because it occluded access by proximity evolved long before most
              people realised it into the highly conditional form of virtual liberty
              ("virtual" because largely sustained by the brilliant fantasy mechanics of
              marketing) that many refer to as "auto-dependency".

              What presages the end of the age of the car is that driving them has stopped
              being much fun. People complaining about increased taxes on cars, higher
              fuel costs and tougher road regulation are concerned less with being
              deprived of fun than of being inconvenienced by restrictions on a technology
              they have embroidered into life choices in relation to where they shop, send
              their children to school, take their leisure and do their work.

              Except for the young who still use the car for sex and socialising the fun's
              mostly gone - except for in-car entertainment to distract from the
              frustrations of congestion. How many magazine or TV programmes now serve an
              audience of motor tourists?

              Boredom and frustration with this technology and preference for alternative
              ways of moving people and goods, some known and some yet to be invented, as
              well as the growing attractiveness of environments from which motorised
              traffic is largely or entirely absent, is inexorably diminishing the car as
              an object of desire.

              This will take a while. With few exceptions most of the world is enamoured
              of a technology which until very recently - in historic time - was a toy for
              the rich. The reason an unexceptional person like me no longer gets a kick
              from driving cars is probably because these things have been in my family
              since the 1880s. I have B & W photos of my grandmother as a young woman
              smoking a cheroot at the wheel of an open top Citroen. That looks stylish
              and fun. I like walking and cycling because I've moved on from getting fun
              from a car. I've started to move on from using them solely for convenience.
              I see my car as a rather expensive inconvenience but need it to feed some
              residual and irrational habit among people like me and to take stuff to the
              dump and for the occasional emergency. If I was in a carfree city and there
              were alternative services to substitute for the few things I still need my
              car for or if I earned less and needed the cash I'd not miss it.

              Simon


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Mike Harrington" <mike@...>
              To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:36 PM
              Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: We may not have long to wait for carfree
              cities


              > It's not from the economists that the oil depletion warning is coming.
              Peak
              > petroleum production is inevitable early in this century, in spite of what
              > economists think or do, and there is no precedent in history for it.
              > Economists think the market will take care of all energy problems but
              > depletion isn't built into their models.
            • J.H. Crawford
              ... We have to be careful here. a specialist population of hobbyists without political power to influence transport or land use policies might be expected to
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 15, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Simon Baddeley said:

                >If that desire degrades - and it already takes a massive amount of marketing
                >to keep people interested, especially in annual buying - the pool of those
                >for whom the car retains a psychological charge will diminish to a
                >specialist population of hobbyists without political power to influence
                >transport or land use policies.

                We have to be careful here. "a specialist population of hobbyists without
                political power to influence transport or land use policies" might
                be expected to apply to the tiny number of private pilots, but, in fact,
                they have amazing political power in the USA. Practically anything proposed
                that might be seen to harm their interests is never adopted.

                >What presages the end of the age of the car is that driving them has stopped
                >being much fun.

                Now THERE'S an issue with some stopping power!

                >This will take a while. With few exceptions most of the world is enamoured
                >of a technology which until very recently - in historic time - was a toy for
                >the rich.

                Like private airplanes, it may long remain so, especially as they are
                nearly certain to retain their usefulness for those in rural areas.

                >If I was in a carfree city and there
                >were alternative services to substitute for the few things I still need my
                >car for or if I earned less and needed the cash I'd not miss it.

                Amen! And, even in rich nations, there are millions of families that don't
                miss it already. These folks are our market.

                Regards,




                ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                Drop Bush
                Not Bombs

                -- ### --

                J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
              • J.H. Crawford
                ... except that I view this as a wonderful opportunity, not an impending disaster! ... Drop Bush Not Bombs -- ###
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 16, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike Harrington said:

                  >If you don't want to talk about energy, or want to
                  >rehash the thinking of twentieth-century economists about energy, although I
                  >can't imagine why you would ever care what an economist has to say about oil
                  >production, that's your business. I think that we're approaching a pretty
                  >deep abyss, and that's my business.

                  except that I view this as a wonderful opportunity, not an impending disaster!



                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Drop Bush
                  Not Bombs

                  -- ### --

                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                  mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.