On 9/23/2007 2:30:56 PM, Doug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Robert wrote: > > > > But I think it is safe to assume that London is not proposing > > dismantling of infrastructure, just restrictions on use. > > If you ban vehicles in a city I would expect that some of the > infrastructure necessary to support a large number of vehicles would > become unnecessary, especially parking areas, but also roads that > would be > adapted to accommodate alternatives. Some sort of taxi service > would be > necessary and they would require some part of the infrastructure, > but it > isn't > difficult to imagine an automated taxi/transit system that > wouldn't > be practical with a requirement to accommodate private vehicles.
I'd agree that a lot of parking could be converted to other uses. But do you think that there were no roads or streets before the advent of the automobile? And what about material delivery and supplies? What would the increased bus traffic drive on? Or the increased number of ambulances that will be required for the inevitable bicycle accidents?(You think drivers are idiots, wait til you see them on bikes) > > In any case my points were that 1. Whatever the plan was, the > handicapped > would be accommodated and 2. Progress deemed necessary probably > wouldn't > be impeded because of the requirements of the handicapped. > That may all be true. But I don't call a reversal to 19th century technology "Progress". I'd like to see people give up their gas powered lawn manicuring devices. That would teach them the meaning of progress and regress, but I digress. <G> xponent Tall Lawns Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
