Re: Car free London?
On 03/10/2007, at 11:07 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: u Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport (apart from at 3am, at which time most of London is 20 mins by car and unreachable at all by public transport...). I thought it would be obvious...trips that require several transfers. Maybe, but I'm having trouble thinking of real-world examples within inner or outer London, and certainly had no trouble getting from Hammersmith to Acton or whatever (which is radial...). Took an hour on the bus instead of 40 mins in the car. Anyways, the example is Exmouth Rd. and Appledore Ave to Balmoral and Waverly and back on a Sunday afternoon I like the way you sneak the and back in there, as I was figuring on two places 20 mins apart, not two place 20 mins there and back, which obviously changes things drastically by adding extra waiting time for the turnaround, along with specifying Sunday when traffic is at its best and public transport on its worst day (and people would be making different sorts of journey to a weekday). Also, not giving the proper road names - Balmoral and Waverly means *nothing* to a Brit - and no suburbs makes it way harder than it needed to for me to look. There are over 30 streets called Balmoral something inside the M25 London Orbital. There are none called Waverly something. There are 40-ish called Waverley something. In fact, I can't find where there are two roads intersecting called those things, and I've looked. I found the junction of Exmouth and Appledore at http://tinyurl.com/3xoy4y but the other one eludes me. You're also talking Greater London, which is out beyond outer London as referred to in the original article. Places like Harrow, Kingston and Ruislip aren't considered London proper (they don't have London postcodes). This is called stacking the deck... FWIW, the frequency of the outlying busses was a bit more than I would have guessed. It's pretty good in the UK. And, as I pointed out, any limitation on private transport would lead to an increase in routes and frequency of public transport. If you actually point out where you were talking about (try a google maps pointer) and I'll check your work against the public transport route finder... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Holy Cow!! I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran rampant - and I missed it! Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport (apart from at 3am, at which time most of London is 20 mins by car and unreachable at all by public transport...). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 09:25 AM Tuesday 10/2/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Holy Cow!! I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran rampant - and I missed it! Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport I don't know about London, but most cities I have lived in in the U.S. are like that if the two points are both on the edge of the city proper, as the only bus routes or other public transportation available tends to run more or less radially from the downtown terminal, so to get from one point on the edge of the city (e.g., your house) to another relatively nearby on the edge of the city (e.g., your place of employment or in some cases the nearest shopping center), rather than going directly there which would be a 20-minute drive you must board the bus which comes closest to your house, ride all the way to the terminal downtown (taking the better part of an hour), wait perhaps the better part of another hour for the next bus on the route which passes closest to your destination, then when (sometimes if) it finally arrives at the terminal ride it for the better part of another hour until you reach the stop closest to your destination. Total time one way from your house to your destination: 2 to 3 hours, compared with 20 minutes if you drove there directly, even with traffic. Then there are the places which you may need to go which are basically unreachable by bus or other public transportation since the nearest any bus route comes to that part of town is at least 3-4 miles or more from the place you need to go (probably an hour's walk or more in good weather for a person in good health who does not have anything to carry, in many cases perhaps at least in part along a busy road which has no sidewalks. Yes, hypothetically you could take along a bicycle but at least here according to the policies sometimes printed on bus schedules and posted at the terminal and inside buses bicycles must be loaded on to a rack on the outside of the bus and the rack has only room for one bicycle and the driver does not even have to stop for you if s/he sees that you have a bicycle and there is already another passenger's bicycle in the rack. I don't know if you are allowed to take a Segway onto the bus, but even if you are for $5K you can probably get a used car which in most cases would be a much better use of the money than getting a Segway to get to and from the bus stop). (apart from at 3am, at which time most of London is 20 mins by car and unreachable at all by public transport...). In lots of the places I have lived many of the bus routes stop running around 6 pm (they are designed to get people who work 8 or 9 to 5 downtown to and from their homes in residential areas toward the edge of the city) and the rest have their last run between 9 and 10 pm, so if you work different hours you are out of luck. Apologies For The Repetition Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Yes, hypothetically you could take along a bicycle but at least here according to the policies sometimes printed on bus schedules and posted at the terminal and inside buses bicycles must be loaded on to a rack on the outside of the bus and the rack has only room for one bicycle and the driver does not even have to stop for you if s/he sees that you have a bicycle and there is already another passenger's bicycle in the rack. The busses in Austin can handle at least 2 bikes each. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 2 Oct 2007, at 22:38, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 09:25 AM Tuesday 10/2/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Holy Cow!! I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran rampant - and I missed it! Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport I don't know about London, but most cities I have lived in in the U.S. are like that if the two points are both on the edge of the city proper, as the only bus routes or other public transportation available tends to run more or less radially from the downtown terminal, so to get from one point on the edge of the city (e.g., your house) to another relatively nearby on the edge of the city (e.g., your place of employment or in some cases the nearest shopping center), rather than going directly there which would be a 20-minute drive you must board the bus which comes closest to your house, ride all the way to the terminal downtown (taking the better part of an hour), snip Sounds like your public transport is designed by people who want to discredit public transport. Works here Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance - Steve Ballmer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 9:25 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Holy Cow!! I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran rampant - and I missed it! Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport (apart from at 3am, at which time most of London is 20 mins by car and unreachable at all by public transport...). I thought it would be obvious...trips that require several transfers. Let me give you a specific example from the western part of London. I'll use street corners because I don't have addressesI took a while in answering because I knew that I'd have to prove it with a specific example...and it wasn't trivial for me to do the bus routes, schedules, etc...and be sure I stay within London proper with my example. Anyways, the example is Exmouth Rd. and Appledore Ave to Balmoral and Waverly and back on a Sunday afternoonabout 4 miles each way. It takes several changes of bus on each end, plus about a half mile walk each side. I am not _that_ familiar with London traffic, but my memory is that it's not terrible on the weekends, except for special occasions. So, 20 minutes for the 8 mile round trip by car sounds reasonable by mebut it might take 30. As far as I can see, several busses would have to be taken each way. Adding the time it takes to wait, along with the added time to take the bus routes (with stops) instead of the direct routes, that would be 40-60 minutes each way...nearest bus stop to nearest bus stop. Including the time it takes to walk a total of two miles, for someone who is not walking briskly...say 20 minute miles), and that gives us 2 hours to 2 hours 40 minutes for the trip. FWIW, the frequency of the outlying busses was a bit more than I would have guessed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Tuesday 2007-10-02 17:11, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Oct 2007, at 22:38, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 09:25 AM Tuesday 10/2/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Holy Cow!! I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran rampant - and I missed it! Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car and hours apart by public transport I don't know about London, but most cities I have lived in in the U.S. are like that if the two points are both on the edge of the city proper, as the only bus routes or other public transportation available tends to run more or less radially from the downtown terminal, so to get from one point on the edge of the city (e.g., your house) to another relatively nearby on the edge of the city (e.g., your place of employment or in some cases the nearest shopping center), rather than going directly there which would be a 20-minute drive you must board the bus which comes closest to your house, ride all the way to the terminal downtown (taking the better part of an hour), snip Sounds like your public transport is designed by people who want to discredit public transport. Works here Maru In Phoenix the problem is car-enabled urban sprawl combined with relatively low ridership. The city is big enough that it has subsidiary hubs as well as bus lines that run along the grid. If you are lucky enough to have a direct line or have connections on heavily used routes then travel times can be reasonable. On the other hand you can have an infrequent route with a 1 hour connection in 110F with a half-mile walk at each end. That assumes that the bus system gets to your part of the eternal sprawling suburb. What the world needs is something like the Mercedes Smart car that is plug-in hybrid diesel electric. You combine that with heavy rail and heavy truck single-level car carriers then you have something. If you had a car carrier system there would be no freezing, or wet, or sweltering 1/2 mile walk to the center of a grid rectangle. If you had a form factor for carrier ready cars you could work or party late even if the public transit system went to sleep for the night. Just get in your little mini car and go home. (It would be best if the little cars fit width-wise so you could just roll on to the heavy-rail carrier and roll off at your destination.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 07:11 PM Tuesday 10/2/2007, William T Goodall wrote: Sounds like your public transport is designed by people who want to discredit public transport. But at least the lead story on the local news today there was an announcement that they are raising the fare . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
Holy Cow!! I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran rampant - and I missed it! However, I always look forward to the side-topics that always seem to be typical Brin humor... (fiber..biofuel..that's beautiful) Gary -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:34 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 09:34 AM Monday 9/17/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Have you tried getting more fiber in your diet? On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Speaking of biofuel: Synchronicity, or what? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
- Original Message - From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:21 PM Subject: Re: Car free London? On 18/09/2007, at 12:34 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) I don't think this is the correct reasoning. It's part of the reasoning, and it's the part most people get. How much biofuel does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? It certainly makes no sense to use a car to go to work and back, and then spend a couple of hours in the gym, but most people already do enough physical exercise not to need that extra time. I certainly don't need to go to the gym for my cardio workout, as I do 60-90mins on a bike most days (25 mins to work, but I take the long way home). Somewhat relevant to the discussion: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/wasting_away_in_1.php I leave home at 5:15 AM and get home around 4:30 PM. xponent 8 Hour Days Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 18/09/2007, at 1:47 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: 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. Fair enough. That doesn't really change my points though. 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. So? Most people work in one location. For those like tradesmen or consultants, sales reps, or others who need to visit multiple sites, company vehicles. They're talking of banning private cars. 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. Of course there are, but for most of London, you're still no more than a couple of blocks from a bus route. Even your 1km separation means that you're around 500m from a bus route, and that's 2.5 blocks. The vast majority of the population can make it 500m to the bus stop on their own feet. For the rest, scooters, wheelchairs, so on. 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. Hours apart compared to a twenty minute car journey? Go on, give me an actual example. Please. And bear in mind I've lived 2/3 of my life on the periphery of London, and have bussed, cycled, trained and driven all over the city. Besides, most people are going in and out, not radially, and if they're seriously considering banning or seriously restricting private car use, they'll add bus routes and possibly a new train line or tube line to assist those radial journeys, as they have to link the Docklands to the rest of the city with the DLR and Jubilee Line extension. 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. I've dealt with this, but to reiterate - I owned a car in London. I still used my bike or public transport a lot more. Of course I'm not saying all car drivers are a bunch of idiots, but a lot of them would have a far better time if they gave up the frustrating commute by car, and reduced substantially the number of short trips they take by car. Most people don't need a car most of the time. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
I saw this email a bit lateso I'm responding out of sequence. Why would you like to submit that proposition why you have just agreed that I am right? I didn't. A conversion of 90% of the 8 km or less transits to active transportation (which I take to imply self propelled such as hiking, biking, skate board, etc. will require an enormous amount of walking, etc. I live in London and drive a car. I think banning all private cars from London would be incredibly difficult and could well have many of the problems people have suggested in this thread. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. However there is nothing in that article (well, I think actually that is a press release) that suggests anything about forcing people to walk No, it is merely a practical consequence of the proposal. You snipped this part of my post, so I don't know if you think it is illogical to consider practical implications. Is that it? Is it ludicrous to look at a proposal, and then think of the inevitable requirements, based on one's knowledge of pertinent facts? Looking at the footnotes, I see a logical contradiction in their proposal...which doesn't surprise me. They state that cars would be banned in the main body of the article, but reference a study in which 90% of the journeys under 8 km would be converted to walking or cycling and 10% would be converted to taxies. I'm not sure why a car for hire is inherently better than a private car...I would think that there would be the extra fuel used getting to the pick up point from one's last drop off point. Again, anyone who's been in a Manhattan rush hour can testify that taxis do not eliminate traffic congestiontheir main advantage is that they help with the parking problem. So, my temporary hypothesis is that deducing the practical implications of a proposal is illogical. But, that, by definition, is using logic to arrive at a conclusion from axioms (the initial proposal and the facts can be treated as axioms for the purpose of the logical exercise.) How is using logic illogical? That's what puzzles me. Now, it is very reasonable to argue that one of Ron's implied axioms was false, but that's different from saying he was illogical. At worst, it would be an understandable misread of the facts. As an aside I would be extremely dubiously if most people with mobility issues in London do, in fact, drive at the moment. Do they stay at home, get picked up by a special bus at their door, or use a car of some sort (friend or a car for hire: taxi)? Also, there are various forms of mobility problems. My wife has arthritis in her knees, making walking 1/4 km at one time or so painful, and making walking 1km total in a day result in a night of pain. On a practical level, her mobility problem is quite modest, she can get to almost any place she wants to here. As folks age, and their ability to walk a km or two in 100F heat decreases, modest mobility issues will increase. To include another post: (particularly most cities in the US) do not. So we naturally wonder if a car ban is implemented in London and proves successful in reducing emissions how soon it will be before it is suggested or implemented in other cities, including those which due to their layout and lack of public transportation pretty much require people to have access to a car to get around, and what will happen to those I have described above who because of medical conditions cannot swap their car for a bicycle. There is nothing natural about it. This sort of ludicrous paranoia is exactly what I objected to in the original post. I tend to dislike the slippery slope argument in general, so I would tend to differ with Ron's conclusions. I think that Slippery slope has proven true in some cases, but false in many more...so I don't worry about them. But, IIRC, you have been perfectly content to accept slippery slope arguments in other casesand not think them ludicrous. This inconsistency puzzles me. The best hypothesis I have is that you tend to believe that those who differ with your analysis are illogical and ludicrous. I'd tend to argue that reasonable people can differ in complex cases. There are times, as with Brin's argument that GWB follows orders from Saudi Arabia, that I believe that reasonable people should not accept such an argument. I would not, as a result of this, conclude that Dr. Brin is inherently illogical. Rather, I would argue that he is way off base on this particular argument. Even more so, I would not conclude that this is the type of illogic that one expects from science fiction writers, thus tarring a large group with a single brush simply because I find a particular argument unreasonable. I'm in the process of detailing how I think one can/should use reason and data to arrive at conclusions when considering empirical questions which cannot be addressed scientifically (politics, economics, etc.) I'd be
Re: Car free London?
On 9/19/07, Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you like to submit that proposition why you have just agreed that I am right? I didn't. A conversion of 90% of the 8 km or less transits to active transportation (which I take to imply self propelled such as hiking, biking, skate board, etc. will require an enormous amount of walking, etc. That isn't what you said though, is it? What you said was: Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. And you are right. And that was my point. I live in London and drive a car. I think banning all private cars from London would be incredibly difficult and could well have many of the problems people have suggested in this thread. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. However there is nothing in that article (well, I think actually that is a press release) that suggests anything about forcing people to walk No, it is merely a practical consequence of the proposal. It isn't a practical consequence of the proposal. It is your assumption and the assumption of the original poster that this is true but that does not make it so. more snipping of stuff that does not pertain to the matter at hand As an aside I would be extremely dubiously if most people with mobility issues in London do, in fact, drive at the moment. Do they stay at home, get picked up by a special bus at their door, or use a car of some sort (friend or a car for hire: taxi)? Yes, all those things plus using mobility aids (wheelchairs, buggies, etc). However they also undertake normal activities such as taking public transport and walking. It is just a lot longer and more unpleasant than for those without mobility issues. There is nothing natural about it. This sort of ludicrous paranoia is exactly what I objected to in the original post. I tend to dislike the slippery slope argument in general, so I would tend to differ with Ron's conclusions. I think that Slippery slope has proven true in some cases, but false in many more...so I don't worry about them. Indeed. But, IIRC, you have been perfectly content to accept slippery slope arguments in other casesand not think them ludicrous. This inconsistency puzzles me. You will have to remind me of these cases. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
Dan Minettte blasphemed: There are times, as with Brin's argument that GWB follows orders from Saudi Arabia, that I believe that reasonable people should not accept such an argument. !!! Die, herectic scum!!! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan Minettte blasphemed: There are times, as with Brin's argument that GWB follows orders from Saudi Arabia, that I believe that reasonable people should not accept such an argument. !!! Die, herectic scum!!! Oh, goody! Holy war! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Dave Land wrote: Folks, I apologize that I wound up the twit. Dave Was that really necessary? Sheesh. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Sep 19, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Dave Land wrote: Folks, I apologize that I wound up the twit. Dave Was that really necessary? Sheesh. Probably not. Apologies to all, especially Martin. Personal attacks are not welcome on Brin-L and I am abashed at having resorted to using them in this exchange. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/07, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, Rio de Janeiro was slowly turning car-free, but recent (1990-2000) movements towards a suburb (Barra da Tijuca) reversed it. Some neighbourhoods of Rio suffer heavily as they became passing areas for those suburbans (NB: a term that is highly derogatory here...) Passing areas or suburbans? -- Mauro Diotallevi Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now. -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
On Behalf Of Julia Thompson If I told you where I got my underwear, would that help? Julia http://www.victoriassecret.com/ Is that a work-safe link? grin Somehow I doubt it... - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Julia Thompson If I told you where I got my underwear, would that help? Julia http://www.victoriassecret.com/ Is that a work-safe link? grin Somehow I doubt it... - jmh It's a shopping site. If lingere is a problem at work, then no. If not, then fine. (You'd be surprised at what I see my friends post on LJ when they're at work) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Mauro Diotallevi wrote: (NB: a term that is highly derogatory here...) Passing areas or suburbans? Suburbans. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Mauro Diotallevi wrote: (NB: a term that is highly derogatory here...) Passing areas or suburbans? Suburbans. Alberto Monteiro I drive one. Then again, I'm highly amused by the minivan (painted to make its sides look like brick walls, btw) with the bumper sticker Minivans are tangible evidence of evil so I'll mostly be amused by any dissing. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 09:34 AM Monday 9/17/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Have you tried getting more fiber in your diet? On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Speaking of biofuel: Synchronicity, or what? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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. 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). 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). I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. Or is it that you don't think practical implications are germane? 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, it's hard to imagine being totally reliant on a car - if you don't own one, those few occasions when you really need door to door transport, taxis are fine (and *all* proper London Taxis can take a wheelchair too). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: Car free London?
See my previous email. Martin -- Forwarded message -- From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 17, 2007 5:09 AM Subject: Re: Car free London? To: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Martin, Another private post: Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. Stop being a twit and wasting our time with your pathetic list-weenie bullshit. Dave On Sep 16, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: Please don't respond to me off-list. If you have something to say to me you can say it in front of everyone. On 9/16/07, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, Responding off list so that this rant doesn't ruin a perfectly interesting conversation. Quoting from the dictionary is not citing your sources, it is using an idiotic rhetorical tool. Fine. Ignore it and get to the point. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I may have spelt wrong - a spelling mistake? on the internet? - but I certainly didn't use it improperly. If not, you wrote so poorly that I and others seem to have thought so. Non sequitur: doesn't follow. What didn't follow what? The proposal may well be a non-starter, but it is scarcely a non- sequitur. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Oh my God, really!? Don't be a twit, Martin. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/07, Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. Well, technically, the proposal doesn't force people to walk. snip I point out this is massive strawman. Point out implies that your statement is self evidently true. I would like to submit the proposition that you might be wrong. Why would you like to submit that proposition why you have just agreed that I am right? I live in London and drive a car. I think banning all private cars from London would be incredibly difficult and could well have many of the problems people have suggested in this thread. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. However there is nothing in that article (well, I think actually that is a press release) that suggests anything about forcing people to walk and there is no reason to assume that such a proposal would require this. As such starting of the conversation in this way strikes me as a very misleading way of framing the discussion. As an aside I would be extremely dubiously if most people with mobility issues in London do, in fact, drive at the moment. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called transparency, and I'd have thought that people on this particular list would at least get that. That said, Martin: take a deep breath, count to ten. In fact, that goes for everyone. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 9/14/07, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: London's Emissions Targets For 2030 Will Only Be Reached By Banning Cars Related in two ways to that link, I read this in the paper today: Cycling England says a 20% increase in bicycle journeys would lower healthcare costs and reduce congestion. It adds that by making a £70m annual investment in cycling initiatives the government could cut up to 54m car journeys a year by 2012 and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 35,000 tonnes. The report says that an adult who swaps a car for a bicycle on a return journey of 2.5 miles - the average cycle trip - will generate annual savings of £137.28 through reduced congestion. A regular cyclist saves the NHS £28.30 a year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2170848,00.html Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/14/07, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: London's Emissions Targets For 2030 Will Only Be Reached By Banning Cars Related in two ways to that link, I read this in the paper today: Cycling England says a 20% increase in bicycle journeys would lower healthcare costs and reduce congestion. It adds that by making a £70m annual investment in cycling initiatives the government could cut up to 54m car journeys a year by 2012 and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 35,000 tonnes. The report says that an adult who swaps a car for a bicycle on a return journey of 2.5 miles - the average cycle trip - will generate annual savings of £137.28 through reduced congestion. A regular cyclist saves the NHS £28.30 a year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2170848,00.html Anyway I looked on the Cycling England website to see if I could find the actual report and lo and behold I couldn't. The press office section seems to have been last updated in June. Likewise I can't find the LSHTM report. It's pretty annoying that you still have to get this filtered through a journalist when the internet makes its easy dissemination possible. And when it is available online it would be nice if the papers actually linked to it, which they never seem to do. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/15/07, jon louis mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the fact is that the oil and automobile industries are critical to global capitalism and i do not see those powerful lobbies allowing alternative modes of transportation to develop. I would hope that it's not that simple... but for those who don't know the history, there is a very sad story from the 1950s of how automobile and related industries destroyed much of America's mass transit infrastructure... in the name of progress. The promise was that they would replace old trolley lines with modern, new efficient buses. They formed a company, National City Lines, that bought the streetcar systems and tore them out virtually the next day. Then they sold the cities crappy buses. Eventually, GM was fined a whopping $5,000 and each executive of the involved companies had to pay a whole dollar. Now those streetcar lines are being rebuilt at a cost of billions and billions of dollars. As I said, it's just sad... but the real lesson, I think, is to watch out when the powerful claim progress. That was the buzzword that got a lot of the public support behind them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Julia Thompson wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) I don't think this is the correct reasoning. How much biofuel does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? It certainly makes no sense to use a car to go to work and back, and then spend a couple of hours in the gym, but most people already do enough physical exercise not to need that extra time. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Telecommuting is good. :) You may not even need to stop to get dressed! (Although it's recommended you be presentable if you're expecting a UPS delivery or something like that.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Nick Arnett wrote: I would hope that it's not that simple... but for those who don't know the history, there is a very sad story from the 1950s of how automobile and related industries destroyed much of America's mass transit infrastructure... in the name of progress. The promise was that they would replace old trolley lines with modern, new efficient buses. (...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy The neutrality of this article is disputed :-P Maybe there _was_ a real economical reason for the change. Here in Rio de Janeiro, we had some lines of street cars, they were dismantled, and nobody cried for them - they caused more harm than good. Maybe electric cars became more expensive than oil-based cars - and probably they are still more expensive now, because most of world's electricity comes from oil or from dirty, slave-labour and polluting coal. Alberto Monteiro the neutrality of this person is disputed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
I want to add my two cents about car-free anything, since the University of New Mexico is working very hard to become a car-free campus - at the age of 68 and in hot weather, walking any distance is exhausting. There have been days I've tried to do so for my health and have come home and been wiped out all afternoon. I tried to re-acquire a bicycle and ride it and found I was no longer secure in my balance. Grocery shopping cannot be done without some way to haul the stuff home. Likewise any other acquisition of supplies. You bet I'm going to take the car when I need to. Yes, people unable to walk as a primary means of transportation can still drive. Yes, there are people whose health problems don't reach the level of needing a gimp sticker on their car but who still can't make the next three blocks without finding a coffee shop to rest and get something to drink. I have no idea what it;s like in London or Chicago. I know that San Francisco is a great town for public transportation and is totally unaffordable to live in, necessitating a long commute for many people. I know that my own city of Albuquerque is very, very hard on the impoverished disabled as far as transportation goes despite the much-touted Albuquerque Ride vans. Details at great length can probably be had from the Weekly Alibi, daily Journal, or daily Trib archives. Just my $0.02 plus a day's use of my bus pass --- Pat from Albuquerque http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ __ God does not play dice with the Universe -Albert Einstein Albert, quit telling God what to do with His dice. -Niels Bohr ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/07, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? It certainly makes no sense to use a car to go to work and back, and then spend a couple of hours in the gym, but most people already do enough physical exercise not to need that extra time. Is this true? Most reports I've seen suggest that very few people get enough exercise. (Obviously enough is a bit vague but generally Government bodies have guidelines.) Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Martin Lewis wrote: does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? It certainly makes no sense to use a car to go to work and back, and then spend a couple of hours in the gym, but most people already do enough physical exercise not to need that extra time. Is this true? Most = whole human population :-P Most reports I've seen suggest that very few people get enough exercise. (Obviously enough is a bit vague but generally Government bodies have guidelines.) Take a random human sample. Most of them work in activities that require a lot of exercise. Of course, if you sample among ODCE elite, the reverse would be true. But in the long range they don't count, because they don't have enough children to repopulate their number :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Martin Lewis wrote: does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? It certainly makes no sense to use a car to go to work and back, and then spend a couple of hours in the gym, but most people already do enough physical exercise not to need that extra time. Is this true? Most = whole human population :-P Most reports I've seen suggest that very few people get enough exercise. (Obviously enough is a bit vague but generally Government bodies have guidelines.) Take a random human sample. Most of them work in activities that require a lot of exercise. Maybe where you are. In the US? Probably not quite so much. I have one friend whom I *know* gets plenty of exercise when he's working. Most of my other friends, nowhere near enough. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-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
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/07, Dan Minettte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. No, you are right. It is hard to overestimate the amount of effort that would be required to elminate cars from London. It may not be designed around the car in the same way American cities but that is still very often the default planning assumption. Achieving a car free London would be an extremely expensive process which would take years, probably decades. Obviously we are nowhere near the stage where this is politically feasible but perhaps the opportunity cost of not doing so will tip the balance at some point in the future. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Netiquette (was Re: Car free London?)
On Sep 17, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called transparency, and I'd have thought that people on this particular list would at least get that. Thanks, Charlie. I've been on lists where taking gripes offline was the practice to save the list from flamewars, and exposing a private message to the list was verboten. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Martin Lewis wrote: It is hard to overestimate the amount of effort that would be required to elminate cars from London. It may not be designed around the car in the same way American cities but that is still very often the default planning assumption. Achieving a car free London would be an extremely expensive process which would take years, probably decades. Obviously we are nowhere near the stage where this is politically feasible but perhaps the opportunity cost of not doing so will tip the balance at some point in the future. It could be done in steps. First, ban cars inside the Circle Line except for a few escape routes, then start changing the car-streets into pedestrian-streets, then gradually increase the circle. It's a project for 2030, isn't it? BTW, Rio de Janeiro was slowly turning car-free, but recent (1990-2000) movements towards a suburb (Barra da Tijuca) reversed it. Some neighbourhoods of Rio suffer heavily as they became passing areas for those suburbans (NB: a term that is highly derogatory here...) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 09:09 AM Monday 9/17/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 9/14/07, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: London's Emissions Targets For 2030 Will Only Be Reached By Banning Cars Related in two ways to that link, I read this in the paper today: Cycling England says a 20% increase in bicycle journeys would lower healthcare costs and reduce congestion. It adds that by making a £70m annual investment in cycling initiatives the government could cut up to 54m car journeys a year by 2012 and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 35,000 tonnes. The report says that an adult who swaps a car for a bicycle on a return journey of 2.5 miles - the average cycle trip - will generate annual savings of £137.28 through reduced congestion. A regular cyclist saves the NHS £28.30 a year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2170848,00.html Anyway I looked on the Cycling England website to see if I could find the actual report and lo and behold I couldn't. The press office section seems to have been last updated in June. Likewise I can't find the LSHTM report. It's pretty annoying that you still have to get this filtered through a journalist when the internet makes its easy dissemination possible. And when it is available online it would be nice if the papers actually linked to it, which they never seem to do. Martin However, the question I and others have concerns those who due to medical conditions cannot pedal a bicycle (either because they do not have sufficient use of their legs to do so or because problems such as frex heart or respiratory disease make them incapable of the physical exertion required for bicycling or walking more than a few dozen feet for that matter) and who may not be able to afford to call for a taxi every time they or their children need to go out (frex their medical condition limits them to working at most part time or to subsisting on an income which is mostly or entirely from disability benefits of at most probably a few hundred US dollars a month, and in addition to the low level of income such benefits provide they are perhaps further financially stressed by the cost of medication or medical devices or other expenses due to their illness which are either only partially covered or not covered at all by whatever insurance they may have). And while London and some other cities like New York City do have public transportation systems which allow many people to get by quite well without owning and driving a car (although when it comes to subways or elevated trains many people with medical conditions like those described above would not be able to manage stairs), other cities (particularly most cities in the US) do not. So we naturally wonder if a car ban is implemented in London and proves successful in reducing emissions how soon it will be before it is suggested or implemented in other cities, including those which due to their layout and lack of public transportation pretty much require people to have access to a car to get around, and what will happen to those I have described above who because of medical conditions cannot swap their car for a bicycle. I and apparently others here think that such questions should be addressed from the start in considering such a proposal . . . if for no other reason than the strong likelihood that by 2030 there are some participating in this discussion now who may be perfectly able to swap their car for a bicycle now who due to one medical condition or another will not be able to pedal a bicycle or walk twenty or so years from now . . . :-( -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 18/09/2007, at 12:34 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) I don't think this is the correct reasoning. It's part of the reasoning, and it's the part most people get. How much biofuel does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? It certainly makes no sense to use a car to go to work and back, and then spend a couple of hours in the gym, but most people already do enough physical exercise not to need that extra time. I certainly don't need to go to the gym for my cardio workout, as I do 60-90mins on a bike most days (25 mins to work, but I take the long way home). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 18/09/2007, at 1:47 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: 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'll answer the rest later as I'm just heading off to work, but this is precisely the sort of straw man that so riled Martin, and it really pisses me off too. All I'm saying is most people most of the time could *drastically* reduce their reliance on cars if they live in big cities. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 18/09/2007, at 12:27 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) Answer one - as much as you want to spend. OK, I'm currently in Melbourne, but the proportions are similar. My commuter bike (a Giant CRX Zero with disk brakes and carbon forks) cost $2000, plus helmet and riding clothes too. However a yearly Zone 1 ticket is $1094. If I lived in Zone 2 (only a couple of km further out) it would be $1689. So the bike does indeed pay for itself in a couple of years. Answer 2: I could have spent 600-700 bucks on a bike that would be perfect for most bike commuters however. In London, £300 will get you a reasonable commuter, plus another hundred for helmet and lights, and a season ticket is as follows: Zones 1-2 £928(the Central Line area plus a couple of stops outside) Zones 1-3 £1096 Zones 1-4 £1328 (Wimbledon...) Zones 1-5 £1592 Zones 1-6 £1720 (about a 10 mile radius) Most people could easily ride in from Zone 4, so a bike could pay for itself in less than half a year. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/2007 5:57:42 AM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Never, ever post a private message to a mailing list. It is an unconscionable breach of netiquette. Oddly enough, I think that replying to an onlist post offlist is pretty poor netiquette. If you wish to berate someone for their behaviour onlist, do it onlist or not at all. It's called transparency, and I'd have thought that people on this particular list would at least get that. I disagree. Your transparency is a breach of my privacy, and if I can settle a dispute between myself and another personally and privately I will. It is not anyones business but mine and the person I am building a bridge with. Transparency is for the elected and appointed, but you are welcome to make an argument to sway me to your view if you like. That said, Martin: take a deep breath, count to ten. In fact, that goes for everyone. Agreed! xponent Opinionated Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/2007 9:36:08 AM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Telecommuting is good. :) You may not even need to stop to get dressed! (Although it's recommended you be presentable if you're expecting a UPS delivery or something like that.) Get Dressed!?!?!?!?! I dare the UPS man to look at my package! xponent Unitary Response Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/2007 4:51:13 PM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/17/2007 9:36:08 AM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Telecommuting is good. :) You may not even need to stop to get dressed! (Although it's recommended you be presentable if you're expecting a UPS delivery or something like that.) Get Dressed!?!?!?!?! I dare the UPS man to look at my package! At the very least, throw on a kilt. :D You can always go regimental under it. Julia who doesn't go regimental in kilts You just have to go and take all the fun out of having an imagination! G xponent The Naked City Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Charlie Bell wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) I don't think this is the correct reasoning. It's part of the reasoning, and it's the part most people get. But if we want to ban cars and adopt bikes to save the planet, then we must calculate the extra consumption due to human labour. How much biofuel does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) I don't think this is the correct reasoning. It's part of the reasoning, and it's the part most people get. But if we want to ban cars and adopt bikes to save the planet, then we must calculate the extra consumption due to human labour. How much biofuel does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? How much biofuel does a human being consume anyway, and what is the increase when we throw bicycling into the mix? That's a better comparison, after all, the human being IN the car will be consuming biofuel anyway. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 18/09/2007, at 12:19 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: I tried to re-acquire a bicycle and ride it and found I was no longer secure in my balance. You are the perfect candidate to discover the joys of triking. I have read story after story by people who rediscovered the joys of cycling through a trike when riding a bike was no longer practical or possible. Grocery shopping cannot be done without some way to haul the stuff home. Likewise any other acquisition of supplies. Seems to fit in my panniers OK - can get a week's groceries on the trike. I've hauled a fair bit on a trailer too, behind my trike. Cars are convenient, and of course there are a small number of people who can't get about without some sort of power assist. And for longer journeys cars are pretty efficient per passenger mile if they've got 2 or more people and are cruising at a constant 60mph. But power- assist doesn't *have* to mean cars. Especially over shorter distances. There are several solutions to help out the frail or unfit tackle hills on their pedal vehicle. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/17/2007 4:51:13 PM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/17/2007 9:36:08 AM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Telecommuting is good. :) You may not even need to stop to get dressed! (Although it's recommended you be presentable if you're expecting a UPS delivery or something like that.) Get Dressed!?!?!?!?! I dare the UPS man to look at my package! At the very least, throw on a kilt. :D You can always go regimental under it. Julia who doesn't go regimental in kilts You just have to go and take all the fun out of having an imagination! G xponent The Naked City Maru rob If I told you where I got my underwear, would that help? Julia http://www.victoriassecret.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/17/2007 9:36:08 AM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Telecommuting is good. :) You may not even need to stop to get dressed! (Although it's recommended you be presentable if you're expecting a UPS delivery or something like that.) Get Dressed!?!?!?!?! I dare the UPS man to look at my package! At the very least, throw on a kilt. :D You can always go regimental under it. Julia who doesn't go regimental in kilts ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: And while London and some other cities like New York City do have public transportation systems which allow many people to get by quite well without owning and driving a car (although when it comes to subways or elevated trains many people with medical conditions like those described above would not be able to manage stairs), other cities (particularly most cities in the US) do not. Er, my friend who lived in Chicago can't handle stairs. Elevators. Escalators. Ever been to DC and ridden the Metro there? Elevators. Escalators. I've gotten a double stroller into the DC Metro system! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 02:34 PM Monday 9/17/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 9/17/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (particularly most cities in the US) do not. So we naturally wonder if a car ban is implemented in London and proves successful in reducing emissions how soon it will be before it is suggested or implemented in other cities, including those which due to their layout and lack of public transportation pretty much require people to have access to a car to get around, and what will happen to those I have described above who because of medical conditions cannot swap their car for a bicycle. There is nothing natural about it. I expect thinking of such things comes more naturally to those who already have experienced medically-related problems with transportation, or have someone close to them who has. This sort of ludicrous paranoia is exactly what I objected to in the original post. We may have to leave this by simply agreeing to disagree. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 03:23 PM Monday 9/17/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: And while London and some other cities like New York City do have public transportation systems which allow many people to get by quite well without owning and driving a car (although when it comes to subways or elevated trains many people with medical conditions like those described above would not be able to manage stairs), other cities (particularly most cities in the US) do not. Er, my friend who lived in Chicago can't handle stairs. Elevators. Escalators. Ever been to DC and ridden the Metro there? Elevators. Escalators. I've gotten a double stroller into the DC Metro system! And I will admit that it has been awhile since I have visited a city with a subway or elevated railway system and ridden it. Do all stations now have elevators? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/17/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (particularly most cities in the US) do not. So we naturally wonder if a car ban is implemented in London and proves successful in reducing emissions how soon it will be before it is suggested or implemented in other cities, including those which due to their layout and lack of public transportation pretty much require people to have access to a car to get around, and what will happen to those I have described above who because of medical conditions cannot swap their car for a bicycle. There is nothing natural about it. This sort of ludicrous paranoia is exactly what I objected to in the original post. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:23 PM Monday 9/17/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: And while London and some other cities like New York City do have public transportation systems which allow many people to get by quite well without owning and driving a car (although when it comes to subways or elevated trains many people with medical conditions like those described above would not be able to manage stairs), other cities (particularly most cities in the US) do not. Er, my friend who lived in Chicago can't handle stairs. Elevators. Escalators. Ever been to DC and ridden the Metro there? Elevators. Escalators. I've gotten a double stroller into the DC Metro system! And I will admit that it has been awhile since I have visited a city with a subway or elevated railway system and ridden it. Do all stations now have elevators? All I've been on lately was DC's sytem. If I'm understanding http://www.wmata.com/accessibility/metrorail.cfm correctly, all subway stations have elevators. Also, somewhere else on the site, I read the statement that all busses are equipped with wheelchair lifts. Anyone with familiarity with any other system in the US, please chime in! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Car free London?
All I'm saying is most people most of the time could *drastically* reduce their reliance on cars if they live in big cities. Charlie which is a rational approach to reduce (not eliminate) emissions. i have greatly reduced my automobile use since i started walking to the market, AND lost 10 pounds. i take the bus back, so i not only save on gas, i don't have to deal with road rage, gridlock, or parking. i've also reduced my consumption of meat by at least 75%. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. - Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 05:09 PM Monday 9/17/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/17/2007 4:51:13 PM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Robert Seeberger wrote: On 9/17/2007 9:36:08 AM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Telecommuting is good. :) You may not even need to stop to get dressed! (Although it's recommended you be presentable if you're expecting a UPS delivery or something like that.) Get Dressed!?!?!?!?! I dare the UPS man to look at my package! At the very least, throw on a kilt. :D You can always go regimental under it. Julia who doesn't go regimental in kilts You just have to go and take all the fun out of having an imagination! G xponent The Naked City Maru rob If I told you where I got my underwear, would that help? Julia http://www.victoriassecret.com/ Now who is trying for spit-takes? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 09:34 AM Monday 9/17/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: My commute varies tremendously. Sometimes I stop in the bathroom on the way from our bedroom to the ofice. That probably triples my time. Have you tried getting more fiber in your diet? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 09:34 AM Monday 9/17/2007, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Question: How much does a good bike (good for riding around London) cost? (Wondering how good a selling point this is; if it pays for itself in 2 years, that's a good deal, IMO.) I don't think this is the correct reasoning. How much biofuel does a human being consume, when we compare to a car? Speaking of biofuel: http://xkcd.com/282/ -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 16/09/2007, at 6:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Now, Charlie Rob and I do not live in London, so our experiences do not directly translate. No, but I did grow up in London, and used a bike pretty much exclusively there too. And it was likewise far quicker by bike there too, because I could use a road that was closed to motor traffic to cut about half a mile out of the journey... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Please don't respond to me off-list. If you have something to say to me you can say it in front of everyone. On 9/16/07, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, Responding off list so that this rant doesn't ruin a perfectly interesting conversation. Quoting from the dictionary is not citing your sources, it is using an idiotic rhetorical tool. Fine. Ignore it and get to the point. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I may have spelt wrong - a spelling mistake? on the internet? - but I certainly didn't use it improperly. If not, you wrote so poorly that I and others seem to have thought so. Non sequitur: doesn't follow. What didn't follow what? The proposal may well be a non-starter, but it is scarcely a non- sequitur. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Oh my God, really!? Don't be a twit, Martin. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. 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. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. Or is it that you don't think practical implications are germane? I point out this is massive strawman. Point out implies that your statement is self evidently true. I would like to submit the proposition that you might be wrong. That you are missing something others are seeing. It happens to us allit certainly happens to me. Its not very difficult but it does betray the total lack of logic I have come to expect from Brin-L. Well, you are insulting us with a pretty broad brush here, aren't you? This statement implies that lack of logic is a tautology when someone differs with your reasoning. I really don't think that is true. If you would like, I'll dust off my symbolic logic and show I used logic to arrive at my conclusions. I'm not usually this sarcastic, but I guess it is a bit irksome when someone accuses me of having a total lack of logic just because I differ with themsince it is a significant part of my professional training and day to day work and all. If you think my logic is faulty, I'd very much appreciate a formal analysis of it so I can see where I ere. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
At 10:06 PM Sunday 9/16/2007, Dan Minettte wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. 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. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. If this is the case, I for one would be interested in hearing what that way is, because like Dan I haven't been able to think of a way to do that. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Folks, I apologize that I wound up the twit. Dave On Sep 16, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: Please don't respond to me off-list. If you have something to say to me you can say it in front of everyone. On 9/16/07, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, Responding off list so that this rant doesn't ruin a perfectly interesting conversation. Quoting from the dictionary is not citing your sources, it is using an idiotic rhetorical tool. Fine. Ignore it and get to the point. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I may have spelt wrong - a spelling mistake? on the internet? - but I certainly didn't use it improperly. If not, you wrote so poorly that I and others seem to have thought so. Non sequitur: doesn't follow. What didn't follow what? The proposal may well be a non-starter, but it is scarcely a non- sequitur. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Oh my God, really!? Don't be a twit, Martin. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:06 PM Sunday 9/16/2007, Dan Minettte wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. 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. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. If this is the case, I for one would be interested in hearing what that way is, because like Dan I haven't been able to think of a way to do that. -- Ronn! :) I will grant this -- my friend who is mobility-impaired to the point of qualifying for a handicap space hangtag, but usually doesn't require a wheelchair, was able to get around Chicago without anything beyond the public transit system. It may be that those of us living in areas that are less densely populated and without terribly good public transit systems really can't grok how good the existing infrastructure in London is. Having never been to London myself (having never been in England, in fact), I couldn't say one way or another. In fact, if you strung the wires for electric trolleys in enough of the Boston area, you could probably do OK there with a similarly draconian proposal if there were an additional plan for people who realy needed door-to-door service, and I have lived within the area served by the MBTA. (Granted, that was 30 years ago, but my mother never needed a car, and never needed a cab except to get to the airport and the doctor's office.) Given how dense a lot of us have been on this topic and having specific objections, however, it might have been nice for someone to explain just what the obvious point we were missing was, instead of dismissing the arguments made without a clear explanation. Assuming someone is in possession of all the facts *and experiences* that you are is a great shortcut to miscommunication. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:10 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Car free London? On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:06 PM Sunday 9/16/2007, Dan Minettte wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:36 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Car free London? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. 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. I think that the main difference between you and others is that you envision a practical way to have no cars in London without making people walk and others, including me, don't. If this is the case, I for one would be interested in hearing what that way is, because like Dan I haven't been able to think of a way to do that. -- Ronn! :) I will grant this -- my friend who is mobility-impaired to the point of qualifying for a handicap space hangtag, but usually doesn't require a wheelchair, was able to get around Chicago without anything beyond the public transit system. I've lived in the Chicago area for about 4 months years ago and have a question. What do you mean by get around Chicago. Is it going to the well traveled areas, or being able to make it from, say, a house in Aurora to one in Geneva in only 20 minutes or so. Or even getting from one to the other without walking a half mile to a bus stop, taking a bus to a central location and then a connecting bus, and spending 1.5 hours on the trip. The proposal specifically stated it wasn't just for central London. Thus, the whole 175 square miles needs to be considered carless. Busses are possible, but one ether has to sit through 50 stops to get from A to B, or use a complex system of transfers. It may be that those of us living in areas that are less densely populated and without terribly good public transit systems really can't grok how good the existing infrastructure in London is. Having never been to London myself (having never been in England, in fact), I couldn't say one way or another. I've been in London a few times (say 20) both in inner London and elsewhere. It seems to me that, if one can walk 4-6 blocks, inner London can be done efficiently via the Tube. But, we had to take cars for other parts of London because using public transportation would just take foreverand would require a good walk. If this is non-representative, I'd be curious to see what I missed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Car free London?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minettte Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:22 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Car free London? in Geneva in only 20 minutes or so. Or even getting from one to the other without walking a half mile to a bus stop, taking a bus to a central ^^^ by location and then a connecting bus, and spending 1.5 hours on the trip. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is basic reading comprehension too much to ask? Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes basic reading comprehension here. If so, could you perhaps clarify? The conversation went like this: Gary makes a massive strawman about forcing people to walk. I point out this is massive strawman. People challenge my assertion that this is massive strawman on the unrelated grounds that such a proposal might have other negative effects. Its not very difficult but it does betray the total lack of logic I have come to expect from Brin-L. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 10:36 PM Friday 9/14/2007, jon louis mann wrote: i suspect a lot of the younger people i see with the placard are scamming, unless they are using a cane; Were you that guy who that time I was waiting for the light to change to cross the street said You're too young to need a cane!? -- Ronn! :) no, but i once got attacked for picking up some jerk's cup that he threw in the street on lincoln by arby's, despite being within two steps of a trash container. I have had similar experiences on several occasions. there are a lot of young people that have legitimate temporary injuries from playing sports, etc. some who are congenitally handicapped, so i normally assuse that if tey are using any kind of assist device that it is legitimate. there are also some people of all ages whose disability is not visible. And as with everything else, one tends to become more aware and understanding of and less quick to judge others for such things after it happens to them or to someone close to them. ;) all i am saying is that there are a lot of yuppie looking people in los angeles that seem to be driving beemers with handicapped placards... this is a city with rather shallow values. i have lived here since 1965 and have seen the progress. You call that _pro_gress? :P -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 04:53 PM Friday 9/14/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 02:00 PM Friday 9/14/2007, jon louis mann wrote: They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has mentioned forcing people to walk. Martin what about electric cars exemptions for those who can prove they can't ambulate; i see yuppies in their bmws all the time with handicapped placards who are definitely not handicapped. jon Perhaps you know more about their situation than the little mentioned above, but people who have something like heart or breathing problems which allow them to walk short distances just fine but may be act up if they exert themselves by walking a greater distance qualify for handicapped parking permits. It is not limited and should not be limited to people in wheelchairs or who look about 80 or 90 hard years old. Or there are people who can walk 2 blocks with effort, but can't walk 10, period, without being in extreme pain for the next week. Yep. As there are people who can possibly function apparently normally one day (or part of one day) but then pay for it by being housebound or virtually bedridden for the next several days. And if you see one of them going from handicapped parking space to business, you might think they acquired the placard illegally. If there's some system in place for electric cabs or something, that would make the solution more reasonable for those who have disabilities, visible or invisible. Julia Free or for a fee? Or maybe a better question: would it cost a dollar or so like the bus or more like a taxi? And would it run a route like the bus or door-to-door like a taxi? For someone who had real mobility issues, both visible and like the ones above, I'd want door-to-door. And having been near 6th St. in Austin last night trying to get a cab, I noticed a lot of things, including pedicabs. If you get a sane driver and it's not bad weather, pedicabs are fun. (Although I'm not sure how sane it is to pedal one of those things in Austin traffic. I did *not* consider that as an alternative to the cab. What ended up happening was my driving the car of the drunk person who'd parked nearby and was planning on spending the night with the friend at whose place I'd parked my own car, and that worked out very nicely for all 3 of us. But that's back to internal combustion engines again, and the thread isn't about Clever Solutions For Getting Out Of the Party District.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Charlie Bell wrote: On 15/09/2007, at 6:01 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: What's mysterious about it? People take extra time to get into work, this costs. Time to work for me: Car: 40 mins Train: 40 mins Tram: 45 mins Bicycle: 25 mins. Charlie Yes, but. Lance Armstrong can't get his kids to school towing them behind his bike. He complimented a guy who could. :) (If Lance lived as close to the school as the other guy does, however, it would be easy for him, I'm sure.) I think it's great that Charlie is in a situation where the most efficient way to get to work has the smallest carbon footprint. If a lot more people were in that situation, we'd have a lot less pollution. (Plus it would be cool to have that many people riding bicycles.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/14/2007 8:42:51 PM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On 15/09/2007, at 6:01 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: What's mysterious about it? People take extra time to get into work, this costs. Time to work for me: Car: 40 mins Train: 40 mins Tram: 45 mins Bicycle: 25 mins. Heh! It is quite clear you don't live in Houston.G For me it would work out: Car: 40 minutes (realistically, probably over an hour) Train: N/A Tram: N/A Bus: 60 minutes Bicycle: 2+ hours Then too, I've been in suburb to suburb commutes that would take 50 minutes by car, but 2 1/2 hours by bus and the busses didn't start running early enough for me to make it to work on time. I like public transportation and use it when it is available. But Houston is way over 600 ^2 miles and has multiple downtown-like areas, so public transportation is a difficult and expensive proposition here. Even in very good public transportation systems not all areas are served equally. xponent Driving These Days Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
Rob wrote: It is quite clear you don't live in Houston.G For me it would work out: Car: 40 minutes (realistically, probably over an hour)Train: N/ATram: N/ABus: 60 minutesBicycle: 2+ hours I think I have you beat: each way my commute to a customer I need to work on site twice/week is: Car: 40-45 minutes, realistically Train Tram: N/A Bus: the only possibility here is to go to the nearest park and ride for downtown, catch a bus downtown, find another park and ride going counterflow, take that, and then walk to where I work. If the bus schedules timed perfectly, it would take about 2.5 hours each way. With realistic timing, I'd say about 3-3.5 hours each way. Bicycle: I'm not sure about this, because I take the freeway about 35 miles each way. I can't take my bike on the freeway, and would be leary about the feeder roads (when I did ride a bike to work 2 miles each way for about 2 years, I was hit by cars twice...even though I was able to ride on the sidewalks and side streets. Now, Charlie Rob and I do not live in London, so our experiences do not directly translate. What interests me in the article is that the ban is not simply in central London, which was explictly declared insufficient, but all the boroughs...which I've seen on Wikipedia to encompass 175 square miles. Without cars, one would require a very dense public transportation network, probably greater than inner London, or require people to walk blocks after getting off public transportation. The other option, of course, is biking or walking the entire way. What I don't understand about Martin's comments is that he seems to think that the potential downside to this is tangential to meeting pollution goals by eliminating cars. I tried to catch every post of his, but may have missed one, so I hope I can ask the question why adressing the downside to a proposal is not germane to the proposal? I'd be willing to wager that, if you looked at banning cars from London, you would find a number of people who would have to find far more expensive means of transportation than automobiles. In saying this, I am thinking about the value of people's time. The value of my time is clear to me because I am a consultant, and see unbillible hours as pure drain. If it takes 1 hour to go to work instead of 15 minutes, then that's a loss of 1.5 billible hours. When I commute to the site of the one customer, I don't bill those hours (as is customary for technical consultants, long term large contracts with in town customers do not include billible hours for driving in town)and determine my effective compensation based on the entire time spent on that customer. I see the origional article as an off the cuff assessment, which will have little bearing on things, beside the letting the author feel rather smug about himself. This is, of course, a YMMV viewpoint. Dan M. _ Gear up for Halo® 3 with free downloads and an exclusive offer. It’s our way of saying thanks for using Windows Live™. http://gethalo3gear.com?ocid=SeptemberWLHalo3_WLHMTxt_2 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 3:21 PM Subject: Re: Car free London? Rob wrote: It is quite clear you don't live in Houston.G For me it would work out: Car: 40 minutes (realistically, probably over an hour)Train: N/ATram: N/ABus: 60 minutesBicycle: 2+ hours I think I have you beat: each way my commute to a customer I need to work on site twice/week is: [Snip] Heh! You might from time to time, but I have to be completely mobile for the purpose of work. I could be required to work anywhere in 5 counties at any time, and public transportation is insufficient for people in my position a good deal of the time. Now, Charlie Rob and I do not live in London, so our experiences do not directly translate. What interests me in the article is that the ban is not simply in central London, which was explictly declared insufficient, but all the boroughs...which I've seen on Wikipedia to encompass 175 square miles. Without cars, one would require a very dense public transportation network, probably greater than inner London, or require people to walk blocks after getting off public transportation. The other option, of course, is biking or walking the entire way. What I don't understand about Martin's comments is that he seems to think that the potential downside to this is tangential to meeting pollution goals by eliminating cars. I tried to catch every post of his, but may have missed one, so I hope I can ask the question why adressing the downside to a proposal is not germane to the proposal? I'd be willing to wager that, if you looked at banning cars from London, you would find a number of people who would have to find far more expensive means of transportation than automobiles. In saying this, I am thinking about the value of people's time. The value of my time is clear to me because I am a consultant, and see unbillible hours as pure drain. If it takes 1 hour to go to work instead of 15 minutes, then that's a loss of 1.5 billible hours. When I commute to the site of the one customer, I don't bill those hours (as is customary for technical consultants, long term large contracts with in town customers do not include billible hours for driving in town)and determine my effective compensation based on the entire time spent on that customer. I see the origional article as an off the cuff assessment, which will have little bearing on things, beside the letting the author feel rather smug about himself. This is, of course, a YMMV viewpoint. It strikes me as one of those Tolkieneque return-to-agrarian-state types of proposals. Fossil burning vehicles a problem? Just stop using them! What if one has an electric vehicle that is recharged at a solar cell charging station? Is it refused at the city limits? That kind of thinking certainly brings Pol Pot to mind. What happens if a family member has an infectious disease and needs medical attention? It would be un ethical to use public transportation or even a cab in such a case. Do you transport a sick person on a bicycle? xponent Tongue In Cheek Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
all i am saying is that there are a lot of yuppie looking people in los angeles that seem to be driving beemers with handicapped placards... this is a city with rather shallow values. i have lived here since 1965 and have seen the progressION. jon You call that _pro_gress? :P -- Ronn! :) at general electric; progress is our most important product... ronald wilson regan... Knowledge is Power - Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 06:16 PM Saturday 9/15/2007, jon louis mann wrote: all i am saying is that there are a lot of yuppie looking people in los angeles that seem to be driving beemers with handicapped placards... this is a city with rather shallow values. i have lived here since 1965 and have seen the progressION. jon You call that _pro_gress? :P -- Ronn! :) at general electric; progress is our most important product... ronald wilson regan... If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con', what is the opposite of 'progress'? Anonymous -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Car free London?
i think it is clear that no large metropolis can function without the single passenger vehicle altogether, unless there is drastic change. in any event, exceptions have to be made for special cases. there are ways rapid transportation can be provided for masses of people if it was cheap and fast enough enough to be a viable alternative to the family car. i started riding the bus recently to cut increasing costs for gas and parking. it works fine as long as i remain in santa monica. any long trips i still use my car and keep registration and insurance current. when i lived in manhattan i managed quite well without a car, so it can be done. there are reasons why our consumer economy in america chose to go with automobiles rather than other means of transportation. the fact is that the oil and automobile industries are critical to global capitalism and i do not see those powerful lobbies allowing alternative modes of transportation to develop. there is a reason why the right of way for train, etc. was usurped and eminent domain was invoked to create freeways and highways. one factor that may relieve the necessity for long commutes is telecommuting. amsterdam address the pollution problem by providing free bicycles. the canals are no longer excessively used for transportation. i don't know the last time they froze and people could get to where they were going on ice skates. thee return-to-agrarian-state type of proposal is not realistic, but it is a pragmatic way to address many problem. it would require an entire new city/state model such as solari's arcopolis. we just can not stop using fossil burning vehicles over night, any more than we can pull out of iraq over night. i wish there was a way but the vested interests in maintaining the status quo at any cost are just too powerful. it would require a benevolent fascist state. what i think will bring it about is a massive world wide natural disaster brought on by continued human accelerated environmental destruction causing out of control and rapid climate change that would make katrina and the indonesian tsunami look like a mild weather anomaly and bring about a collapse. after seeing the 11th hour that would be a best case scenario allowing humanity to survive with a new perspective, and hopefully not repeat the same mistakes. the other extreme would be for the earth to be devoid of all forms of life, or perhaps crossing the anaerobic/aerobic threshold with simple celled organisms alone surviving. another scenario is that the roaches and sea anemones will inherit the earth. my money is on a collapse of civilization that will allow the earth to achieve a natural equilibrium. Knowledge is Power Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Car free London?
Whatever politicians that may be in power if this scenario would came true, would definitely not be in power much longer. There's an interesting paragraph about the potential health benefits of a car free London, but I see they conveniently forget to mention the increased health RISK of forcing people to walk that are not physically capable, and the increased risk of forcing people to walk in extreme weather - heat, cold, rain, snow, fog, etc. Complete article: http://tinyurl.com/3amrbl London's Emissions Targets For 2030 Will Only Be Reached By Banning Cars Posted: 13 Sep 2007 05:58 AM CDT London Authority http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/ (GLA) takes radical steps, one of which could be the removal of all cars from both inner and outer London, according to a report published today. snip 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. Given the lower starting point, this means 83% lower emissions than the UK average for 2000. snip A separate paper uses London travel data to identify four archetypal car using groups in London: Claire, a 10 year old girl; Lucy, a 40 year old mother; Tom, a 50 year old man living and working in outer London; and Derek, a 78 year old man. It calculates the increases in physical activity and energy expenditure that would result if they transferred their car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport, with occasional trips by taxi. By doing so, they would expend an average of 139,300 kJ of energy a year, equivalent to an average of 4.5 kg of fat. Lucy would reduce her risk of breast cancer by 25% and increase her life expectancy by between 1 and 2 years, while Tom would enjoy a 20-40% reduction in the risk of premature mortality and around a 30% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/14/07, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatever politicians that may be in power if this scenario would came true, would definitely not be in power much longer. Why? There's an interesting paragraph about the potential health benefits of a car free London, but I see they conveniently forget to mention the increased health RISK of forcing people to walk that are not physically capable, and the increased risk of forcing people to walk in extreme weather - heat, cold, rain, snow, fog, etc. They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has mentioned forcing people to walk. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 07:58 AM Friday 9/14/2007, Gary Nunn wrote: Whatever politicians that may be in power if this scenario would came true, would definitely not be in power much longer. There's an interesting paragraph about the potential health benefits of a car free London, but I see they conveniently forget to mention the increased health RISK of forcing people to walk that are not physically capable, and the increased risk of forcing people to walk in extreme weather - heat, cold, rain, snow, fog, etc. Complete article: http://tinyurl.com/3amrbl London's Emissions Targets For 2030 Will Only Be Reached By Banning Cars Posted: 13 Sep 2007 05:58 AM CDT London Authority http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/ (GLA) takes radical steps, one of which could be the removal of all cars from both inner and outer London, according to a report published today. snip 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. Given the lower starting point, this means 83% lower emissions than the UK average for 2000. snip A separate paper uses London travel data to identify four archetypal car using groups in London: Claire, a 10 year old girl; Lucy, a 40 year old mother; Tom, a 50 year old man living and working in outer London; and Derek, a 78 year old man. It calculates the increases in physical activity and energy expenditure that would result if they transferred their car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport, with occasional trips by taxi. By doing so, they would expend an average of 139,300 kJ of energy a year, equivalent to an average of 4.5 kg of fat. Lucy would reduce her risk of breast cancer by 25% and increase her life expectancy by between 1 and 2 years, while Tom would enjoy a 20-40% reduction in the risk of premature mortality and around a 30% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes. While Derek will contribute by slipping and falling and breaking his hip, leading in a few weeks to his doing his part, in the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge, to ... decrease the surplus population. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Car free London?
They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has mentioned forcing people to walk. Martin what about electric cars exemptions for those who can prove they can't ambulate; i see yuppies in their bmws all the time with handicapped placards who are definitely not handicapped. jon - Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
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 in physical activity and energy expenditure that would result if they transferred their car journeys to walking, cycling and public transport, with occasional trips by taxi. Increasing walking is obviously a good thing. This doesn't mean Ken Livingston is about to march into peoples' front rooms and force them at gunpoint to walk everywhere, regardless of their age and health. As for your unrelated point about analysising negative factors, well, 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. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 14 Sep 2007 at 20:53, Martin Lewis wrote: 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... 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. 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. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 14 Sep 2007 at 14:19, Martin Lewis 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. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
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
Re: Car free London?
At 02:00 PM Friday 9/14/2007, jon louis mann wrote: They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has mentioned forcing people to walk. Martin what about electric cars exemptions for those who can prove they can't ambulate; i see yuppies in their bmws all the time with handicapped placards who are definitely not handicapped. jon Perhaps you know more about their situation than the little mentioned above, but people who have something like heart or breathing problems which allow them to walk short distances just fine but may be act up if they exert themselves by walking a greater distance qualify for handicapped parking permits. It is not limited and should not be limited to people in wheelchairs or who look about 80 or 90 hard years old. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 03:10 PM Friday 9/14/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for got to do with reducing emissions? Martin They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in the article referenced) is unrealistic. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Car free London?
what about electric cars exemptions for those who can prove they can't ambulate; i see yuppies in their bmws all the time with handicapped placards who are definitely not handicapped. jon Perhaps you know more about their situation than the little mentioned above, but people who have something like heart or breathing problems which allow them to walk short distances just fine but may be act up if they exert themselves by walking a greater distance qualify for handicapped parking permits. It is not limited and should not be limited to people in wheelchairs or who look about 80 or 90 hard years old. i am sure that is the case some of the time, there are exceptions to every rule. here in california it is easy to get a doctor to authorize a placard. i had one when my wife had als, but i didn't abuse it. i could have got one when i had back surgery and using a walker and kept it. los angeles is the capital of yuppies who have no conscience. the difference between a porcupine and a bmw owner is the beemers have their pricks on the inside. jon Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 02:00 PM Friday 9/14/2007, jon louis mann wrote: They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has mentioned forcing people to walk. Martin what about electric cars exemptions for those who can prove they can't ambulate; i see yuppies in their bmws all the time with handicapped placards who are definitely not handicapped. jon Perhaps you know more about their situation than the little mentioned above, but people who have something like heart or breathing problems which allow them to walk short distances just fine but may be act up if they exert themselves by walking a greater distance qualify for handicapped parking permits. It is not limited and should not be limited to people in wheelchairs or who look about 80 or 90 hard years old. Or there are people who can walk 2 blocks with effort, but can't walk 10, period, without being in extreme pain for the next week. And if you see one of them going from handicapped parking space to business, you might think they acquired the placard illegally. If there's some system in place for electric cabs or something, that would make the solution more reasonable for those who have disabilities, visible or invisible. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 04:53 PM Friday 9/14/2007, Julia Thompson wrote: On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 02:00 PM Friday 9/14/2007, jon louis mann wrote: They don't conviently forget it. You are the only person who has mentioned forcing people to walk. Martin what about electric cars exemptions for those who can prove they can't ambulate; i see yuppies in their bmws all the time with handicapped placards who are definitely not handicapped. jon Perhaps you know more about their situation than the little mentioned above, but people who have something like heart or breathing problems which allow them to walk short distances just fine but may be act up if they exert themselves by walking a greater distance qualify for handicapped parking permits. It is not limited and should not be limited to people in wheelchairs or who look about 80 or 90 hard years old. Or there are people who can walk 2 blocks with effort, but can't walk 10, period, without being in extreme pain for the next week. Yep. As there are people who can possibly function apparently normally one day (or part of one day) but then pay for it by being housebound or virtually bedridden for the next several days. And if you see one of them going from handicapped parking space to business, you might think they acquired the placard illegally. If there's some system in place for electric cabs or something, that would make the solution more reasonable for those who have disabilities, visible or invisible. Julia Free or for a fee? Or maybe a better question: would it cost a dollar or so like the bus or more like a taxi? And would it run a route like the bus or door-to-door like a taxi? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/14/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for got to do with reducing emissions? They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in the article referenced) is unrealistic. You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non sequitar, of course, but hey. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 07:01 PM Friday 9/14/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 9/14/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for got to do with reducing emissions? They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in the article referenced) is unrealistic. You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non sequitar, of course, but hey. Martin http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur: non sequitur One entry found for non sequitur. Main Entry: non se·qui·tur Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw-tr also -tur Function: noun Etymology: Latin, it does not follow 1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent 2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said It seems to me that pointing out a significant problem with the implementation of a proposal which was not addressed in the proposal is indeed clearly related to the proposal. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for got to do with reducing emissions? They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in the article referenced) is unrealistic. You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non sequitar, of course, but hey. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur: snip Please tell me you didn't have to look that up. Or do you just have such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand the conversation that is taking place? It seems to me that pointing out a significant problem with the implementation of a proposal which was not addressed in the proposal is indeed clearly related to the proposal. Of course. But, again, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Is basic reading comprehension too much to ask? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non sequitar, of course, but hey. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur: snip Please tell me you didn't have to look that up. Or do you just have such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand the conversation that is taking place? Ronn's point seems to be that _you_ should have looked it up. My experience with Ronn on this list suggests that he knows exactly what non-sequitur means without looking it up, but he likes to cite his sources. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I think you may have meant non-starter, which is an expression some use for something that is so wrong that it just won't happen. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 9/15/07, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please tell me you didn't have to look that up. Or do you just have such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand the conversation that is taking place? Ronn's point seems to be that _you_ should have looked it up. My experience with Ronn on this list suggests that he knows exactly what non-sequitur means without looking it up, but he likes to cite his sources. Quoting from the dictionary is not citing your sources, it is using an idiotic rhetorical tool. I have no beef with Ronn, but I'm no fan of spelling or grammar-weenie behavior, either. On the other hand, you did spell non- sequitur wrong and you used it improperly. I may have spelt wrong - a spelling mistake? on the internet? - but I certainly didn't use it improperly. I think you may have meant non-starter, which is an expression some use for something that is so wrong that it just won't happen. As to the topic at hand, If a world-class city like London wants to ban private cars, it probably needs to take on the responsibility of providing alternative transportation for those who simply cannot, for health reasons, walk the distances required. Oh my God, really!? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
At 07:28 PM Friday 9/14/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: On 9/15/07, Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do these hypothetical costs that you have shown no evidence for got to do with reducing emissions? They present reasons why the proposal (at least as it is described in the article referenced) is unrealistic. You could indeed present several reasons why the proposal is difficult and possibly unwise to implement. This would be a non sequitar, of course, but hey. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur: snip Please tell me you didn't have to look that up. No. (I even knew how to spell it without looking it up.) I did wonder if perhaps there was some definition of the term which I was not thinking of which would explain why discussion of the problems with the proposal could be considered a non sequitur. The definition I quoted suggests that there is not. Or do you just have such contempt for your audience that you assume they don't understand the conversation that is taking place? No. I failed to understand why you thought the response I (and others) made was a non sequitur. As I said previously, to me (and apparently to some others here), discussion of obvious problems with the proposal to meet emission goals by banning all automotive traffic in the city seems quite clearly related to the topic. If you feel that such discussion is not clearly related to the topic, perhaps you could help us out by explaining why it is not. It seems to me that pointing out a significant problem with the implementation of a proposal which was not addressed in the proposal is indeed clearly related to the proposal. Of course. But, again, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I disagree. Why do you think it has nothing to do with the matter at hand? Is basic reading comprehension too much to ask? Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes basic reading comprehension here. If so, could you perhaps clarify? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Car free London?
On 15/09/2007, at 6:01 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: What's mysterious about it? People take extra time to get into work, this costs. Time to work for me: Car: 40 mins Train: 40 mins Tram: 45 mins Bicycle: 25 mins. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
