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

Re: [carfree_cities] Carfree cities - what about those airports?

Expand Messages
  • James Rombough
    ... (snip) ... The problem here is that the basic purpose of automobiles is take people to places that walking and trains already do (or used to) in a shorter
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 26, 2000
      --- Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@...> wrote:
      (snip)
      > Joined up thinking means making connections. You can
      > work on one issue
      > directly or you can come at it from different
      > angles. There is already a
      > robust and growing campaign against airport
      > expansion in many European
      > cities and I quoted the Lighter-than-Air URL because
      > there are a number of
      > nutters out there who can envisage that airships
      > might be a good place to
      > put your money.

      The problem here is that the basic purpose of
      automobiles is take people to places that walking and
      trains already do (or used to) in a shorter period of
      time (not that much shorter though). But airplanes
      are designed to take you to places *much* further away
      in a *much* shorter period of time (short haul flights
      are another matter, but most flights are reasonably
      long).

      So, as a result of over-emphasizing automobile travel
      instead of walking or mass transit, auto traffic
      congestion can reach the point where walking or a
      local train is faster. With airplanes, you can't
      expand the air above you, like you can expand roads;
      air traffic congestion has much lower limits than auto
      traffic congestion.

      If the people opposed to airport expansion (most of
      whom moved in when the airport was already there I
      might add) used the same political energy against
      cars, we would be much better off.

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
      http://mail.yahoo.com/
    • Mike Lacey
      ... Agreed. In fact I would wager that the environmental / quality of life damage from an edge city airport is small compared to that caused by the new roads,
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 26, 2000
        --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, James Rombough <jsrombough@y...>
        wrote:
        > The problem here is that the basic purpose of
        > automobiles is take people to places that walking and
        > trains already do (or used to) in a shorter period of
        > time (not that much shorter though). But airplanes
        > are designed to take you to places *much* further away
        > in a *much* shorter period of time (short haul flights
        > are another matter, but most flights are reasonably
        > long).

        Agreed.

        In fact I would wager that the environmental / quality of life damage
        from an edge city airport is small compared to that caused by the new
        roads, traffic, shopping malls, soulless new towns, hotels etc. which
        serve such airports. Furthermore I could put a much better argument
        for the existence of the airport itself than I could for the roads,
        traffic, new towns etc. that "service" it (a dubious term if ever I
        heard one)

        San Diego International airport is (literally) walking distance from
        the City Centre, so for the most part it shares the its
        infrastructure (hotels, shopping, transportation). The environmental
        impact of the airport is minimized, one does not need a car (or even
        a bike!) to get there and in fact the sight of a jet airliner
        elegantly sailing over downtown is quite magnificent. Noise is low
        sice take off is over the bay (admittedly not an option in some
        cities).

        So instead of selfishly removing airports from our city, lets embrace
        them. Why not apply the standard of proximity to airports as we do to
        everthing else in the city.

        Mike
      • Louis-Luc Le Guerrier
        ... I agree airplanes do not share any problem with cars except the fuel pollution. So we should keep our airports, but make them accessible by anything but
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 26, 2000
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mike Lacey [mailto:firefly956@...]
          > Sent: 26 juin, 2000 22:02
          > To: carfree_cities@egroups.com
          > Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Carfree cities - what about those
          > airports?
          >
          >
          > --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, James Rombough <jsrombough@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > The problem here is that the basic purpose of
          > > automobiles is take people to places that walking and
          > > trains already do (or used to) in a shorter period of
          > > time (not that much shorter though). But airplanes
          > > are designed to take you to places *much* further away
          > > in a *much* shorter period of time (short haul flights
          > > are another matter, but most flights are reasonably
          > > long).
          >
          > Agreed.
          >
          > In fact I would wager that the environmental / quality of life damage
          > from an edge city airport is small compared to that caused by the new
          > roads, traffic, shopping malls, soulless new towns, hotels etc. which
          > serve such airports. Furthermore I could put a much better argument
          > for the existence of the airport itself than I could for the roads,
          > traffic, new towns etc. that "service" it (a dubious term if ever I
          > heard one)
          I agree airplanes do not share any problem with cars except the fuel
          pollution. So we should keep our airports, but make them accessible by
          anything but cars. In Montreal, we ought to make a light rail or metro
          system linking downtown to Dorval airport. My commuter train passes not far
          from airport, but I haven't managed yet how one walks there from the train
          station.

          Let's embrace trains, boats, planes, metros, trams, bikes, and our legs, and
          put all our energy to enforce the use of any of these instead of problematic
          automobiles.

          Louis-Luc
        • Martha Torell
          ... Restricting airport expansion may translate into expanding rail travel. So the airport restriction movement certainly gets my attention. ... This is
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 3, 2000
            > directly or you can come at it from different angles. There is already a
            > robust and growing campaign against airport expansion in many European
            > cities and I quoted the Lighter-than-Air URL because there are a number of
            > nutters out there who can envisage that airships might be a good place to
            > put your money.

            Restricting airport expansion may translate into expanding rail travel.
            So the airport restriction movement certainly gets my attention.

            > As for being unrealistic I'm used to that. A few years ago
            > people were saying Carfree cities were unrealistic. they still do - but the
            > debate is well and truly out of the running chocks. In politics there is no
            > such thing as being realistic. "What women equal to men! You must be joking"
            > "What get rid of slavery? You'll destroy the whole economy of the South!"
            > "What stop allowing children to work down mines! Another joke!" "What
            > abolish apartheid! Never."

            This is heartening.

            Martha
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.