> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:14 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Technically reality > >> It's an interesting way of looking at things. I just don't think it is >> a helpful way of understanding empirical phenomenon. It doesn't help us >> model present observations and predict future observations. If that >> isn't your goal, then using the most technical sense is reasonable, but I >> think it was Ronn's goal. > > Maybe I'm missing something here, I apologize in advance if that's the > case. It seems to me that Dan is belaboring the technicality here - the > fact that there was no mention of how the handicapped would be provided > for. Isn't it rather silly to assume that if a city adopted a car free > policy that they wouldn't make provisions for the handicapped? I don't > know what the laws are regarding the handicapped in the U.K. but I'm > relatively certain that you _couldn't_ do it in the U.S.
The only technicality that I assumed was that a "car free policy" was a car free policy. I assumed that it wasn't a "car free policy except, of course for taxies" or "a car free policy except, of course, for taxis and company cars." I'd call them "policies that reduce the use of automobiles by prohibiting the use of private automobiles." I try to not give pedantic arguments, but I don't think this one is. The difference between "no cars" and "some cars" is important it affects the bottom line that is considered: the amount of transportation based CO2 emissions in London. Private busses for the handicapped are very expensive to run. The cost of taking a taxi from A to B is noticeably less than providing such transportation. There are exceptions of course: busses from a senior citizens center to the grocery story can be run efficiently....but those exceptions are for a very limited subset of trips that folks take. It is expensive enough to run these busses for a small subset of the people who can get handicapped placards. It's much more expensive for all of them. It's still more expensive to run these busses for folks who would find walking a mile or two in the heat or rain or cold a significant burden, but don't have a placard. Plus, if this service were run with automobiles, it would both be cheaper and more energy efficient. So, looking again at the proposal, I think that the footnote to an actual study indicates both that a car-free London is unfeasible and what the real proposal would have to be. There would be taxis, but no private cars. 90% of the trips under 5 miles would have to be by bike or foot, and the other 10% would be taxies. One thing worth noting....a much higher bus/tube system is not considered. I think I know why. If one looks at the environmental impact of expanding the service, one finds that there would be a lot of busses with only a few people on them running here and there. This would keep the pollution goal from being met. Thus, busses and subways are reserved for the longer trip. And, for taxis to represent only 10% of the total trips < 5 miles, their use would have to be severely limited. The severely handicapped would be able to use them, as well as a decent amount of use by the next layer and rare use by those able to use these without pain. Part of my assumption is that the number of people who aren't truly handicapped, but that would still find a hard time walking/biking 10 miles a day are >=10% of the trip takers....especially if you look at the worst 5%-10% of the days (wet and cold or hot). In particular, I cannot see a lot long distance active transportation when the temp > 95F. Maybe Charlie would find that a breeze, but I think that >50% of the folks wouldn't. > Another perspective; If a city or a country, with the approval of the > general public, decided that it was in their best interests to dismantle a > segment of their infrastructure, is it reasonable to expect that that > infrastructure should be preserved for a tiny minority of that public? Good question. I think it depends on the circumstances. I think the tremendous burden we are placing on schools by mainstreaming severely handicapped children is a mistake. For example, when a student requires a full time aid (as was required for a student who was at our church), they greatly increase the cost of the class. So, if London really did need to eliminate cars, I'd expect a lot of folks, in Ronn's words, would have to walk....or at least find a way to get down into a bike. Finally, when I look at questions like this, I tend to do back of the envelop cost estimations for the options to decide which are the ones that can be implemented. For example, I assume that the study didn't consider a vast increase in the mass transit system for good reason....after a while it becomes energy inefficient (e.g. as the ridership per bus goes down). There was a reason, before there were cars, that there were a million miles of roads in the US in 1900 while only about 200k of rail (including subways and trolleys.) Cars/wagons on roads going everywhere are much more practical than trains/trolleys on tracks going everywhere. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
