Thanks for the review.
>Some comments on the article in Carfree Times. The figures given for
>cars seem to be based on an auto-oriented city (which is appropriate if
>you are comparing modes of urban development). But I think driving is
>much less practical in a dense city. For example, in Boston where I
>lived for seven years, 400 meters or more is a typical distance from a
>parking spot to one's home or destination, so the overhead time is much
>longer, and it is impractical for short distances.
"These assumptions are very optimistic and could only be realized if the driver were one of just a few using this mode; otherwise much more waiting at intersections would arise, along with more time to park."
Doesn't that pretty well cover it?
>The spacing of metro stops makes a big difference, as was mentioned in
>My commute was 6 km and took 45 minutes by metro (with one transfer),
>mainly because the stops are too far apart except in the downtown area,
>and secondarily because the average wait times are too long. 20 minutes
>of the was walking and 8 was waiting. This is why the bicycle cannot be
>beat for most trips in this city (in my case it took half the time).
In reality, in most places, if you dare to ride a bike,
you get there first. Here in Lisbon, I wouldn't dare,
and neither does anybody else (well, there are a few....)
Fortunately, the metros seem to run on about 5-6 minute headways
during the day, with trains coming amazingly often during rush
hour, maybe 3 minutes. It's a good system, fortunately for me.
Anything coming of your meeting with Rob?
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities