|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
Den 2007-08-11 01:18:29 skrev Jeremy Parker :
No, no, the government has it exactly right. What those figures show is that sitting in a car is 16p per minute more burdensome than riding a bike, or to put it the other way round, riding a bike is 16p per minute more fun than sitting in a car. Ride a bike - it's more fun - the government says so. I agree, but the question is if the transport engineers are reading the numbers right. The right way of reading this is that transport projects must be made to shift motorists to cycling, thereby saving all this money. Same thing with public transportation; the time cost for passengers is lower because they can use the time for sleeping and reading. Erik Sandblom -- Oil is for sissies |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
Matt B wrote:
Should we suppress the demand for [...]sewage disposal, ... rather than increase the capacity to satisfy those who need it??? Why, are there more people spouting **** now than there were a decade ago? -dan |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
Matt B wrote:
MJ Ray wrote: [...] The network (and by that I mean motorway) is simply nowhere near adequate. [...] Woosh! The goalposts vanish into the distance, as you replace 'decent' with the impossible requirement of 'adequate'! No, I use the two interchangeably. To be decent the network needs to be adequate. c.f. To be decent you need to be clothed adequately ;-) You can be decent but clothed inadequately. Using the two interchangeably is silly. No European country has an 'adequate' road network in your sense. Some though are closer, and getting closer still. The motorway-building argument is like saying there should be no AUPs on broadband. Motor traffic is authorised, legal, and absolutely necessary, so how is it like saying that? Most broadband traffic is authorised, legal, and just as necessary. Compare. So why /do/ they need an AUP? To suppress demand and stop spending a disproportionate amount catering to abusers who aren't paying an amount appropriate to what they actually use. Building motorways everywhere they could be is similar abuse catering. [...] A fossil-fuelled car is not more efficient than a fossil-fuelled car - it's exactly as efficient! c.f. VW Polo Blue Motion, at 99g/km, and, say, the Lamborghini Diablo 132 at 520 g/km CO2. So you want to ban Lamborghini Diablos? More efficient personal mobility means non-fossil- fuelled vehicles, including bicycles. Not at all. A typical car passenger is greener than a typical bus or train passenger, and how efficient is a bike when you need to use a train to carry you and it for most of many journeys. The train seldom carries my bike and I only need a train for fairly few journeys. I don't know what travel patterns you are seeking to facilitate, but they seem unreasonable. So do I, and my preferred efficient personal transport is not allowed on motorways. No, nor on footpaths, nor on railway tracks. Do you think motorway and railway travel would be more efficient and more safe if bicycles shared the infrastructure? Bicycles can use railway infrastructure in appropriate carriers and some railway corridors are being upgraded to include cycle tracks. Building motorways has little benefit for cycling, On the contrary. It offers the massive potential benefit of freeing the legacy roads of our communities from their role as high-speed motor corridors. [...] Nonsense. It just converts them into high-speed motor corridors feeding larger, higher-speed (=even less fuel-efficient) motor corridors. It also adds dangerous junctions and energy-burning bridges to the existing road network. Why? Because, in total, it's cheaper in many senses to burn all the cyclists than it is to burn motor fuel. Your half-decent CBAs at work again. I note that you did not explain your superior knowledge of MK's road network compared to those who've used it every day for years... I never claimed any "superior" knowledge. I was commenting on my experiences and my observations. Back to the peanut gallery with you. I note that you did not answer my question: "Should we suppress the demand for, say, broadband, hospitals, sewage disposal, ... rather than increase the capacity to satisfy those who need it???" I did. Apparently it wasn't explicit enough for you: not only should we, but we already do! Broadband has AUPs and houses aren't built where the services can't cope with it. Tell me, do you even own a motor car? By that do you /really/ mean _own_, or do you mean "keep", or perhaps even currently have the use of one. Cycling is an admirable mode, yes. I enjoy it, you enjoy it. It is not necessarily practical though, or desirable, for most people to use it for most journeys. [...] Impractical for some, I agree, and the failure to develop the road network sensibly instead of building ever-bigger ever-faster roads is part of the reason. Why undesirable, though? [...] OTOH car travel is so [...] desirable (otherwise why it it such a successful cash-cow) Obvious: politics. [...] We need to return our streets and country lanes to the communities to which they belong, and to "banish" motor traffic to a dedicated infrastructure (motorways) where they do less harm to everyone else. So how will you keep motor traffic off our streets and country lanes? Massive car parks by motorway junctions? Puzzled, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message ... Why, are there more people spouting **** now than there were a decade ago? Because the Enviro-Nazis have gained some prominence. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
Quoting I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... :
Because the Enviro-Nazis have gained some prominence. Godwin. You lose. Particularly ironic, given your overtly racist email address. -- David Damerell flcl? Today is Teleute, August. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
"David Damerell" wrote in message ... Quoting I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... : Because the Enviro-Nazis have gained some prominence. Godwin. You lose. Particularly ironic, given your overtly racist email address. I've never given much credence to Godwin's (rather odd) law, myself - although I understand that the nerdier types of Usenet participants still derive a great deal of pleasure from seeking out infractions of it. I'm puzzled why 'concerned@massimmigration should be construed by you as overtly racist' - you didn't come over with your cycle in the back of wagon from sunnier climes, did you? Whatever, I would contend that any who is *not* concerned@massimmigration, should adopt one of the following email addresses for their own use: Feel free to choose whichever you feel to be the most suitable - but, hurry, demand for them is continually increasing (particulalrly number two) |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:08:54 +0100, "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....."
wrote: Whatever, I would contend that any who is *not* concerned@massimmigration, should adopt one of the following email addresses for their own use: That would be everyone who understands the economic and cultural benefits that immigrants bring to this country, then. Many of us recall that bleak period in the 80s of mass emmigration, when doctors, teachers and nurses were heading for Australia and America while builders, plumbers and carpenters headed for Germany. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
transport planning favours cars
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:08:54 +0100, "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....." wrote: Whatever, I would contend that any who is *not* concerned@massimmigration, should adopt one of the following email addresses for their own use: That would be everyone who understands the economic and cultural benefits that immigrants bring to this country, then. Many of us recall that bleak period in the 80s of mass emmigration, when doctors, teachers and nurses were heading for Australia and America while builders, plumbers and carpenters headed for Germany. I always find it ironic when people complain about immigration and then state they will leave the country if they had the opportunity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
planning for a unicycle | himmhui | Unicycling | 52 | July 18th 07 09:37 AM |
Planning a trip | Gingerblokey | UK | 13 | May 14th 07 11:20 AM |