headers
Carlos F. Pardo SUTP | 3 Oct 2006 12:02
Favicon

RV: (Public.Spaces) 10 great U.S. cities for cycling

Interesting.of course, they include mountain biking, which changes the
picture completely. If the "thrill of the hunt" is to be included, I would
include NYC.

Best regards,

Carlos F. Pardo

  _____  

De: Katie Salay [mailto:ksalay@...] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 02 de Octubre de 2006 10:51 a.m.
Para: public.spaces@...
Asunto: (Public.Spaces) 10 great U.S. cities for cycling

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900
490.html

10 Other Great Biking Cities

Sunday, October 1, 2006; P04

City biking can be more than bus fumes and potholes; in some metropolitan
centers, urban cyclists can enjoy clean bay air, lighted paved routes and
even shower stations to rinse off the bike sweat. We asked Adventure Cycling
Association (800-755- 2453, http://www.adventurecycling.org), a nonprofit
bike organization in Montana, and Bicycling magazine
(http://www.bicycling.com) for their suggestions on the most bike-friendly
cities in the country. Their picks:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ktsourl | 8 Oct 2006 17:00
Picon
Favicon

Energy conservation in transport sector


It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some study
indicating that conserving energy in transport sector makes much more
sense, than conserving energy in residential sector. Does anybody have
any clue how to find this or some similar study?

------------------ Old Message ----------------------
  Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:25:38 -0400
  From: Lloyd Wright <LFWright@...>
  Subject: Lisbon project

The following article outlines a new project near Lisbon, Portugal to
develop a "sustainable" community for 30,000 people.  Unfortunately,
they have chosen a greenfield site in a nature reserve.  Besides the
obvious damage to the reserve, it would also seem that the development
(about 20 km) from Lisbon is also going to increase sprawl and long
commutes.  I am surprised to see that WWF is behind the project.
I recall a study a few years back comparing the overall environmental
impact of highly energy-efficient homes in a suburban area to energy
inefficient homes in the city centre.  The study took place in San
Francisco.  The result was that the super efficient homes in a
suburban area produced many more emissions than an inefficient home in
the city centre.  Basically, the extra energy consumed in the longer
commute blew away any savings from having an energy-efficient home.

It seems that the Lisbon project is repeating this mistake.  Worse
still is the fact that the whole concept is being touted as being
"green" and "sustainable" by leading environmental organisations.  It
seems to me that it would be significantly better to invest their 1
billion euros in a brownfield site in a low-income area of Lisbon.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jym Dyer | 8 Oct 2006 20:38
Gravatar

Re: Energy conservation in transport sector

> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some
> study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
> makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
> sector.

=v= This is a false dichotomy.  Given the amount of carbon being
pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
the energy use in *all* sectors.  Quibbling over which sector is
worse is a distraction.

=v= We see this all the time within a sector:  Being able to run
an electric, or hybrid, or biodiesel engine becomes an excuse to
drive cars, drive SUVs, and drive them longer distances.  That
kind of thinking impedes real progress.

=v= If you do find the type of studies you seek (including ones
that come to the opposite conclusion), analyze them.  It's easy
for them to overlook variables.  Also, consider the ways in
which the two overlap:

o What proportion of the building is being devoted to cars?

o Is the building situated in a location (e.g. a sprawling
  suburb) dependent, by design, on car use?

    <_Jym_≥

 
Yahoo! Groups Links
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Todd Edelman | 9 Oct 2006 22:34

Re: Energy conservation in transport sector

Hi,

>> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some
>> study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
>> makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
>> sector.
>
> =v= This is a false dichotomy.  Given the amount of carbon being
> pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
> the energy use in *all* sectors.  Quibbling over which sector is
> worse is a distraction.
 <_Jym_≥ (Dyer)

I DISagree that this is a false dichotomy. I think everyone on this list
... and a few others ;-)... would agree that we need to reduce energy use
and its effects in *all* sectors. The point Lloyd makes (original message
below) is quite right-on, and - though it is not clear if the Lisbon
Ecoproject With Convenient Parking energy use estimate includes a high or
decent percentage of public transport - I would argue that even public
transport-dependent development is a problem, as when someone cant or
doesnt want to take public transport their only option is a car. So,
sprawl can induce car use, even it has plenty of public transport to
another urban area.

Of course, if it is difficult to take a car to the centre, or if the new
site is relatively self-sufficient, things get improved. I think the best
distance is tram-distance, which is also bike-distance, or closer of
course.

As some of you know I have been involved in the train/public transport
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
chbuckeye | 11 Oct 2006 19:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Energy conservation in transport sector

--- In carfree_cities@..., "Todd Edelman" <edelman <at> ...> wrote:

> >> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some
> >> study indicating that conserving energy in transport sector
> >> makes much more sense, than conserving energy in residential
> >> sector.
> >
> > =v= This is a false dichotomy.  Given the amount of carbon being
> > pumped into the atmosphere, we need to be looking at reducing
> > the energy use in *all* sectors.  Quibbling over which sector is
> > worse is a distraction.
>  <_Jym_≥ (Dyer)

Transportation is a very significant consumer of energy in the US
according to a chart published by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in the U.S. (part of the Energy Department I believe) as
part of the 2000 Annual Energy Review. See the PDF at the following link.
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/USEnFlow00-quads.pdf#search=%22us%20energy%20flow%20trends%202000%20net%20primary%20resource%20consumption%22

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
chbuckeye | 11 Oct 2006 19:13
Picon
Favicon

Re: Energy conservation in transport sector

--- In carfree_cities@..., "ktsourl" <ktsourl <at> ...> wrote:
>
> 
> It is mentioned before in this group that there exists some study
> indicating that conserving energy in transport sector makes much more
> sense, than conserving energy in residential sector. Does anybody have
> any clue how to find this or some similar study?

Here are some results of a study in the US.  Energy used for
transportation is significant.  Also note that almost all energy  for
transportion in the US comes from petroleum.

http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:carfree_cities-digest@... 
    mailto:carfree_cities-fullfeatured@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John Bredin | 12 Oct 2006 23:31
Picon
Favicon

Bogus pro-highway "study" needs a response!

The American Highway Users Alliance released a "study" giving 
a "report card" on the evacuation capability of various cities.

http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf

With some exceptions, the grades seem to be inversely related to 
which cities have the most extensive rail transit service. The lowest-
ranked "F" cities are New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

The organization concluded, as a surprise to nobody, that the remedy 
is "Additional highway capacity on exit routes, *** relief at traffic 
bottlenecks, and the physical construction of new highway capacity."  
They also conclude that "buses are the most important mechanism for 
evacuation for those without cars."

The problem with this self-serving "study" is that several media 
outlets across the nation have picked up the "press release" as 
actual news.
http://www.highways.org/Press_Releases/release10-12-06.htm
became a story on Reuters:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?
type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-
12T165716Z_01_N12329986_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-
EVACUATION.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-domesticNews-3
Bloomberg News:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601103&sid=a_WOdeFbVKyA&refer=us
USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-11-cities-
evacuations_x.htm
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
dubluth | 16 Oct 2006 11:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: Bogus pro-highway "study" needs a response!

Pick a perceived problem then suggest more roads and automobiles as
the way to ameliorate the problem.  Never mind that more automobiles
would just make such a problem worse.  The news media dutifully
repeats such nonsense as credible.

We may just have some work cut out for us.

I commented on this back in January
http://carfree.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1511959

Bill
--- In carfree_cities@..., "John Bredin" <jbbredin <at> ...> wrote:
>
> The American Highway Users Alliance released a "study" giving 
> a "report card" on the evacuation capability of various cities.
> 
> http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf
> 
> With some exceptions, the grades seem to be inversely related to 
> which cities have the most extensive rail transit service. The lowest-
> ranked "

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Matt Hohmeister | 21 Oct 2006 03:01
Picon

Carfree concept mapping with Google Earth

I have been looking at a satellite image of the area around an
apartment I used to live in, and I've made some comments about how I
feel the area could be converted to carfree. Comments welcome/encouraged!

http://mahohmei.com/carfree/

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:carfree_cities-digest@... 
    mailto:carfree_cities-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Matt Hohmeister | 21 Oct 2006 02:57
Picon

Re: Bogus pro-highway "study" needs a response!

Didn't lower Manhattan evacuate relatively quickly on 11 September
2001? And, if I'm not mistaken, didn't a lot of vehicular roads turn
into giant pedestrian roads?

Yet every time a McCity has to be evacuated before a hurricane, the
interstate never seems to have enough capacity.

I especially love the part about rental cars. I live a few blocks from
a Budget station which has 10-20 rental cars on the lot at any given
time, so they'll be primed and ready to evacuate, oh, 50-100 people
when the Big One strikes.

And, of course, giving low-income people access to own cars will help
them evacuate too. Must be why most cities force landlords to provide
tenants with "free" parking.

[/sarcasm]

--- In carfree_cities@..., "John Bredin" <jbbredin <at> ...> wrote:
>
> The American Highway Users Alliance released a "study" giving 
> a "report card" on the evacuation capability of various cities.
> 
> http://www.highways.org/pdfs/evacuation_report_card2006.pdf
> 
> With some exceptions, the grades seem to be inversely related to 
> which cities have the most extensive rail transit service. The lowest-
> ranked "F" cities are New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane