On 9/14/07, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has > > > > mentioned forcing people to walk. > > > > > > Untrue. They didn't analyse a single negative factor. The increased > > > travel times, the added stress and so on, whioch would need to be > > > fully evaluated. And, of course, the economic costs. > > > > I really don't know what you are talking about. Please show me where > > it says that. The article does says: > > > > "It calculates the increases" > > Right. And only those...
Okay, I will start again by reiterating that everything you are saying is utterly unrelated to my point. > > As for your unrelated point about analysising negative factors, well, > > That IS the entire point. It's a typical political "select the data > and outcome" "report". It's damaging to the environment because of > the paper being wasted printing it. Again I'm not sure what your point is. The whole point of this report is they have started with an outcome (reduced Co2 emmissions) and shown what would reduce these. This doesn't seem particularly difficult to grasp. If your counter-argument to "how do we achive policy outcome x?" is "this is designed to achieve outcome x" then I'm not sure why you bothered voicing it. > > I haven't read the LSHTM report, just the linked article, but I > > wouldn't assume that public transport is automatically slower and more > > stressful than car journeys. As for economic costs, that is equally > > mysterious. > > What's mysterious about it? People take extra time to get into work, > this costs. There's plenty of evidence from park and ride schemes > about what happens when you do something like this with even a > partial filtering of transport. What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for got to do with reducing emissions? Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
