headers
Richard Risemberg | 1 Mar 2003 15:46
Picon
Favicon

March Issue of The New Colonist

The March issue of The New Colonist is online and available now at 
http://www.newcolonist.com.

This month we present a special issue on The Sustainable City. In it we 
examine the characteristics of a healthy city, the ways citizens can 
help make their own city healthier through personal actions, and the 
experiences and philosophies of the editorial staff. We also include a 
feature article on Green Roof Systems, and a paean to Mr. Rogers , who 
died at age 74 last week, and to his neighborhood, as well as 
editorials, Citysongs, and the Roadkill Bill cartoon. Just click on:

http://www.newcolonist.com

Thank you.
--

-- 
Richard Risemberg
http://www.living-room.org
http://www.newcolonist.com

"Hope cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. It is 
just like the roads across the earth. For actually there were no roads 
to begin with, but when many people pass one way a road is made."

Lu Hsun
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andrea Casalotti | 1 Mar 2003 22:36

"The Social Implications of Hypermobility"

At a recent conference, John Adams, professor of geography at University 
College London talked about his report for OECD, "The Social Implications 
of Hypermobility":
"Huge extra amounts of space will be taken up by housing and roads. Society 
will be much more polarised. The old, the poor, the disadvantaged and the 
drunk won't be able to move around so much in
cars and will be stranded in the abandoned inner cities. Life will be even 
more anonymous. We won't know our neighbours or our neighbourhood. They 
will be even less child friendly. Children will be more and more confined
indoors. Neighbourhoods will get less varied. The suburbs and towns will 
all look the same. Life too will get even more dangerous for those not in 
cars, walkers and cyclists will be
even more marginalised. And of course we'll all get even fatter. Urban 
sprawl means more car use means more obesity means more heart attacks.
There'll be more crime, everyone will get more defensive, policing will
get more Orwellian and less on the beat in order to keep up with more
sophisticated and better equipped criminals. Life will get less and less 
democratic."

I asked him: But isn't this just simplistic extrapolation of current 
trends, taken to extremes only in North America? He says that around the 
most humane European cities, such as Copenhagen and Zurich, the suburbs are 
attracting more people.

I remain unconvinced. The new century is heralding a post-consumeristic 
society where quality defeats quantity.

Thanks to Barry, enthusiastic leader of Greenwich Cyclist, for the 
conference notes.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mike Harrington | 2 Mar 2003 06:02

Re: "The Social Implications of Hypermobility"

I don't see what we are going to extrapolate with. All the signs point to
the cheap-energy society of the second half of the twentieth century ending
sometime early in this century. There is a major correction coming, and
urban sprawl will be the most noticeable victim. It's about time.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrea Casalotti" <andrea@...>
To: <carfree_cities@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: [carfree_cities] "The Social Implications of Hypermobility"

> At a recent conference, John Adams, professor of geography at University
> College London talked about his report for OECD, "The Social Implications
> of Hypermobility":
> "Huge extra amounts of space will be taken up by housing and roads.
Society
> will be much more polarised. The old, the poor, the disadvantaged and the
> drunk won't be able to move around so much in
> cars and will be stranded in the abandoned inner cities. Life will be even
> more anonymous. We won't know our neighbours or our neighbourhood. They
> will be even less child friendly. Children will be more and more confined
> indoors. Neighbourhoods will get less varied. The suburbs and towns will
> all look the same. Life too will get even more dangerous for those not in
> cars, walkers and cyclists will be
> even more marginalised. And of course we'll all get even fatter. Urban
> sprawl means more car use means more obesity means more heart attacks.
> There'll be more crime, everyone will get more defensive, policing will
> get more Orwellian and less on the beat in order to keep up with more
> sophisticated and better equipped criminals. Life will get less and less
> democratic."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ktsourl | 2 Mar 2003 20:12
Picon
Favicon

Re: Urban automobile cost per mile


>sorry, I don't fancy eating cheap butter in large quantities. 
>The simple fact is that if I cycle into London (11 miles) 
>rather than get the train, I have to pay more for food. 

You don't have to, you just fancy

>Whichever way you look at it, that's part of the cost that 
>should be considered. I am talking about simple cash outlays 
>that have to be budgeted for. I don't really see any way 
>round it. You're talking about whether it is worth it, which 
>is a completely different conversation.

Most probably it is a completely different conversation. The meaning
of the word "cost" has many complications as any economist (or even
accountant) could assure. Anyway, you may perhaps fancy better your
tasty extra food, being conscious that most people would be willing
to pay for having the opportunity to enjoy (without any obesity or
healthy risk) this extra food you enjoy thanks to biking.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert J. Matter | 4 Mar 2003 01:52
Picon

Metropolis report sees clogged future [Chicago]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0303030180mar03,1,5147367.column?coll=chi%2Dprintmetro%2Dhed

Getting Around

Jon Hilkevitch 
Metropolis report sees clogged future 

Published March 3, 2003 

It took more than 100 years of sweat and innovation for the Chicago area to 
build one of the premier transportation networks in the world, yet only a few 
decades for the system to edge toward dysfunction. 

Somewhere along the way, the bold vision of Daniel Burnham's 1909 Plan of 
Chicago became blurred, but it can be put back into sharp focus. 

A new report that will be released Tuesday presents an alarming picture of the 
region over the next 30 years if the current land use, transportation and 
taxation policies continue. 

The report, produced by the nonprofit civic group Chicago Metropolis 2020, 
calls for sweeping changes including the consolidation of the CTA, Metra and 
Pace, the Illinois Tollway and regional planning organizations into one 
super-agency to foster coordination instead of competition. 

The overall goal is to produce a coherent long-term strategy that prevents 
regional gridlock, allows people to live closer to their jobs and uses open 
lands more wisely. 

The report also pushes for renewed investment in "regional cities," including
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Will | 4 Mar 2003 10:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: Urban automobile cost per mile

--- In carfree_cities@..., Jason Davies <jason <at> o...> wrote:

> 
> I was talking about how much it costs to get
> around by bike: having to eat extra is part of that cost, and I *do* eat
> more, because I go through periods of not cycling much, then cycling
quite
> a lot, and the amount I eat varies accordingly.

I see at least 3 aspects to this;

- Most people in the US eat too much anyway, so if they started
bicycling, they would likely moderate their appetite and eat less.

- If they did so, they could save money by not having a gym expense
that they likely do not use anyway.

- The cost of an extra side at a meal is insignificant to the
$0.36/mile cost of operating the automobile.

The whole point is; What it the big picture?

Will Stewart
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Wes Ballew | 4 Mar 2003 16:48

Re: Re: Re: Urban automobile cost per mile

The discussion originated by saying that the cost of maintenance of a bicycle is comparable to the cost of
maintence of a car. I'm assuming you are riding a high end bicycle, and have a car that breaks down
relatively infrequently. An expensive bicycle with high end components is not necessary. For instance,
I commuted more than 1000 miles over the course of several years on a three speed bicycle that cost $5. I
spent roughly $40 in maintenance over those years on that bike. Although the buy-cycling community would
likeall cyclists to think they have to have high end equipment for a simple commute (or worse a ride on a
circular path in an urban park) it isn't true. 

On the other hand, because I can't afford a newer car, I spent several thousand dollars on rapairs and
maintenance of the car during that same time. Hardly comparable expenses. 

>>> jason@... 02/28/03 02:32PM >>>
>In any case the calories per se cost virtually nothing: 100 gramms of
>cheep oil or butter (=900 calories) may keep you biking for at least
>1-2 hours (you can count better than me the traveled distance during
>this time). What you pay for when you buy food, is more the taste and
>the eating enjoyment than the calories that contains. The possibility
>to extend this enjoyment may represent more a positive value than a
>negative cost.

sorry, I don't fancy eating cheap butter in large quantities. The simple
fact is that if I cycle into London (11 miles) rather than get the train, I
have to pay more for food. Whichever way you look at it, that's part of the
cost that should be considered. I am talking about simple cash outlays that
have to be budgeted for. I don't really see any way round it. You're
talking about whether it is worth it, which is a completely different
conversation.

To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@... 
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark Christiansen | 4 Mar 2003 16:44

Re: Re: Urban automobile cost per mile

In addition to that, there are potential health cost reductions from being in better physical condition.

Mark

The depth and strength of a human character are defined by its moral reserves. People reveal themselves
completely only when they are thrown out of the customary conditions of their life, for only then do they
have to fall back on their reserves. 
-- Leonardo da Vinci

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Will <v_stewart@...> 
To: carfree_cities@... 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 2:48 AM
Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Urban automobile cost per mile

--- In carfree_cities@..., Jason Davies <jason <at> o...> wrote:

> 
> I was talking about how much it costs to get
> around by bike: having to eat extra is part of that cost, and I *do* eat
> more, because I go through periods of not cycling much, then cycling
quite
> a lot, and the amount I eat varies accordingly.

I see at least 3 aspects to this;

- Most people in the US eat too much anyway, so if they started
bicycling, they would likely moderate their appetite and eat less.

- If they did so, they could save money by not having a gym expense
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Jason Davies | 4 Mar 2003 17:06
Picon

Re: Re: Re: Urban automobile cost per mile

>The discussion originated by saying that the cost of maintenance of a
>bicycle is comparable to the cost of maintence of a car.

no it didn't, not exactly. It began when I said that riding a bicycle in
London was not far off the calculated cost of driving in the US (I noted
that it would be more here). Since then it has completely baffled me.,
mainly because (I hate to say it) it has been repeatedly treated as if it
was a US-relevant discussion rather than a cross-cultural discussion. 

If you want to ride a three-speed 11 miles each way in London, up the hills
and across the moon-craters, then be my guest, but I would rather walk.
Those US cities that I hae visited (NY, Denver, Santa Fe, Troy, Schenectady
(apologies if I have misspelled) are utterly different from London. Your
worst road surface is equal to our best, and there's precious little of
that. My bikes cost between £500 and £600: not really top range. I have
done the journey - once - on a three speed and it took me an hour and a
half instead of an hour. No thanks:-)

In the UK, the obesity issue and the gym issue are both virtually
non-existent. We have a hard time getting employers etc to acknowledge that
it costs *anything* to cycle (expenses are typically allowed for cars and
trains, rarely for bikes). It is a bit depressing to find that even
pro-cycling people also think it is negligable!
--

-- 
"Always get a second opinion. Don't you think?"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jason Davies | 4 Mar 2003 17:07
Picon

Re: Re: Urban automobile cost per mile

>In addition to that, there are potential health cost reductions from
>being in better physical condition.

see? US-centred, again:-)
--

-- 
"Car makers are putting so much mobile technology into their cars, why not just insert a SIM card and turn the
car into a mobile itself?" (Guardian 27.6.02)

"The [add stupid car name of choice]: the future has arrived."

All you need now is an ice-cream cone stuck on your forehead, a couple of sink plungers stuck in those
*essential* 'roo-bars, and you too can be a Dalek.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane