> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:32 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Car free London? > > > On 17/09/2007, at 1:06 PM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > > > > Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. > > There could > > be mass transit on each and every street, I suppose. It's just that > > any realistic implementation of the proposal would force people who > > are not capable of walking moderately long distances to do so. > > Taxis, exemptions for disabled transport, electric scooters, recumbent > tricycles, wheelchairs, pedicabs, and so on. In fact, precisely how > disabled people who don't have access to a car get around now.
Well, I thought that taxis, as automobiles for hire. This isn't just a pedantic point, because I was trying to parse the meaning of the point. If you consider NYC, taxies are not the most fuel efficient means of getting around. Busses and subways are much more energy efficient. This is apparent to anyone who has been in Manhattan. > It's not a proposal that forces anyone to do anything, especially if > you're talking about the centre of London (within the Circle Line > area, which seems to be the general idea). That would be a lot more practical, but I don't think that's what is being considered. Reading the original article that was referenced at the start of the : <quote> The GLA is committed to reducing London's carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2025.... They do, however, offer a radical vision which could achieve a 72% drop in emissions by 2030 - a figure that is 83% lower than the current UK average. The solution involves combining a car-free London with high levels of active transport (for example walking and cycling) and realistic but challenging energy-efficient improvements...... Calculations show that a car-free inner London scenario equates to a 49% reduction in emissions7. Because most London car trips are within outer London, changes in inner London boroughs alone were not found to be sufficient to meet the GLA emissions target. The car-free inner and outer London model was found to bring about a 72% reduction in emissions, with active transport making up 53% of all trips. <end quote> This definitely includes all of London. I realize that public transportation within the circle line is very good, and folks would only have to walk a couple of blocks or so...as they do now. When I worked in London, the folks I worked with typically used public transportation when going within the loop. But, since their office was on the outskirts of London, and customers were scattered in outer London, as well as within the loop, they did use their cars. > It's just that *some* of > you Americans are so utterly wedded to the concept of the private car > that you really seem to be unable to consider that people can get by > without, or that cities in Europe and Australia have integrated > transport that actually works (mostly). > When you have lived in a city like London with bus routes every two > blocks, and the Underground and train lines connecting lots of those > up too, Huh? Looking at http://www.busmap.org/downloads/No28Page%202.pdf I see much larger gaps than that in greater London. I've seen a number of areas where there are > 1 km gaps between bus lines. And, my experience with going between areas on the periphery is that there are direct lines downtown, but a number of transfers and a great deal of time is needed to go from one place to another if neither place is in the central city. Two places that are only 20 minutes by car are often hours apart by bus. Finally, are you arguing that those people who do drive in greater London are just a bunch of idiots who could do much better if only they used public transportation instead? I tend to believe that folks do things that cost significant amounts of money (as driving does in GB) because they see a benefit. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
