-
Way to create a very narrow band of society.
-
^
But people tend to do that themselves ....
-
^
But people tend to do that themselves ....
People will always congregate. That has nothing to do with their transport choices.
edit Oh yeah lucas already said that.
Yeah so why make things worse. If some grows up in an area where people only do one type of job it narrows their thinking and aspirations. I know there is already grouping together of people and of course you will never have someone growing up in London with a sheep farmer next door but I believe it's in the interests of people to have diverse local socialites not increased polarisation.
-
Why would anyone want to spend their time with people they have nothing in common with?
Given a choice most people will want to live with people and around people that are like them.
-
Apart from the obvious like to create understanding and empathy..Your attitude is unbelievably narrow.
How do you know you don't like someone until you have met them? Just because you may not appear to have anything in common does not mean you don't.
Don't get me wrong I would love to see alot less car usage but creating a car free of car very very expensive community creates even greater polarisation. You are restricting the people who live there to office and retail workers.
Interacting with only a narrow strip of people is bad for you. We all tend to end up doing it but as I said why make things even worse. You just end up with a form ghettoization.
-
I don't decide automatically I won't like someone by looking at them, it just a matter of fact that I tend to like people who I have something in common with.
It is pragmatic rather than idealistic.
-
as long as theyre not stinking hippies hey lucas?
Don't even get me started ....
-
On a nerdy note, in transport circles there's a generally accepted rule of thumb called the 40:40:20 rule. It says that of current car journeys 40% could be easily and in many case immediatly transferred to non-car means (bus/train/walk/cycle), 40% could be changed to non-car but this is more difficult and the remaining 20% need cars.
Ya, 2p spent.
-
On a nerdy note, in transport circles there's a generally accepted rule of thumb called the 40:40:20 rule. It says that of current car journeys 40% could be easily and in many case immediatly transferred to non-car means (bus/train/walk/cycle), 40% could be changed to non-car but this is more difficult and the remaining 20% need cars.
True. On a note of pedantry, this, and especially '40% could be changed to non-car but this is more difficult and 20% need cars' reflects current journey patterns. If the need to travel is reduced further (as it can be), these numbers change even more in favour of the sustainable modes.
That's why the failure of regional and national government to aim economic and transport strategy emphatically at reducing the need to travel is even more galling.
-
You are restricting the people who live there to office and retail workers.
Firstly office and retail are possible the two broadest segments of industry. Retails isn't just about selling records, bikes and clothes. You have skilled labour in there as well; bakers, butchers, clothes designers, artists in retail, governance, law, logistics, accountancy in office to mention a bare few. Suggesting that these two areas form a narrow section of society is ridiculous.
Secondly, you aren't preventing people from the industrial sectors from living there. Adopting an orbital industrial model is perfectly feasible, after all, we've been doing it for centuries. Cycling and walking to work for this segment of the workforce is equally viable. On top of that the orbital accessibility of cars doesn't prohibit longer working distances, it just requires people to adopt a multi-modal travel practice. Even agricultural land can be located on the edges of a town. It certainly is where I live and I cycle there at least once a week.
How about the skilled labour in domestic services like carpenters, plumbers and electricians. Why do you think they wouldn't live in a town like Vauban? I can't imagine that he absence of cars would mean that they would have no work to do.
In fact the only people that I can think of that couldn't be attracted to living in a town like Vauban are those that work in industries that are limited to metropolitain areas. However, that only applies to Vauban in the same way that it would apply to any small suburban town, like the one I live in. If a large city, London for instance, were redesigned with a suburban model like that of Vauban, then that limitation would be equally inapplicable.
Removing cars from suburban models doesn't limit social diversity, provided, like Vauban, it doesn't limit social access. The only real limitation is on those with limited mobility, and that is an issue that could easily be addressed.
-
I don't decide automatically I won't like someone by looking at them, it just a matter of fact that I tend to like people who I have something in common with.
It is pragmatic rather than idealistic.
Perfect way to keep the us and them Daily Mail esq though pattern going. You may be the king of empathy and have no problem identifying with most people but it rarely works both ways.
-
Firstly office and retail are possible the two broadest segments of industry. Retails isn't just about selling records, bikes and clothes. You have skilled labour in there as well; bakers, butchers, clothes designers, artists in retail, governance, law, logistics, accountancy in office to mention a bare few. Suggesting that these two areas form a narrow section of society is ridiculous.
I never said it was didn't have a fair amount of jobs involved but it still misses out a large number of other jobs types.
Secondly, you aren't preventing people from the industrial sectors from living there. Adopting an orbital industrial model is perfectly feasible, after all, we've been doing it for centuries. Cycling and walking to work for this segment of the workforce is equally viable. On top of that the orbital accessibility of cars doesn't prohibit longer working distances, it just requires people to adopt a multi-modal travel practice. Even agricultural land can be located on the edges of a town. It certainly is where I live and I cycle there at least once a week.
People have never liked living near industry unless they have to for work, if you had heavy industry in this small town it would have to be in a ghetto just like London of old was with the industrial part with all the workers away from the rest.
How about the skilled labour in domestic services like carpenters, plumbers and electricians. Why do you think they wouldn't live in a town like Vauban? I can't imagine that he absence of cars would mean that they would have no work to do.
How the fuck are they going to move stuff about? Cargo bikes would be all well and good if you only have small jobs, very close together and don't need to go pick up supplies. Do you realize how small a job has to be to require more sand and cement then you could move about by cargo bike? Even if all these requirement where ticked off, this development stupidly has no garages, where the fuck are you meant to keep a cargo bike?
[/quote]
In fact the only people that I can think of that couldn't be attracted to living in a town like Vauban are those that work in industries that are limited to metropolitain areas. However, that only applies to Vauban in the same way that it would apply to any small suburban town, like the one I live in. If a large city, London for instance, were redesigned with a suburban model like that of Vauban, then that limitation would be equally inapplicable.Removing cars from suburban models doesn't limit social diversity, provided, like Vauban, it doesn't limit social access. The only real limitation is on those with limited mobility, and that is an issue that could easily be addressed.[/quote]
The fact is it would reduce the scope of people to live there. Even if you ignore all the points I have bought up it still only allows for people with this very standardized, average (modal) lifestyle, who just operate within this narrow band go to a middling work for 8hr a day, go to the cinema and walk the dogs on w/e. It's just not flexable enough, this really would just result in a narrowed band of people. People need to travel, they like to go visit relatives e.t.c
I think the idea of a reduced car use settlement is a good idea just not the way this is done. Sure reduce the need for cars to be able to drive locally, maybe only one car per house hold standard, but stopping people being able to have a car for a million other uses is unrealistic.
As I stated I am not against reducing car usage and reducing car need but you have to except that cars vans lorries are necessary. There are many things that are very very very difficult without them. There is also a big assumption being made that trains and buses are somehow better than cars. Cars are really only a really bad polluter when they are inefficient and only have one person in them. I know many car journeys only have one person in them but that is a how the cars are used issue not a having a car issue.
-
True. On a note of pedantry, this, and especially '40% could be changed to non-car but this is more difficult and 20% need cars' reflects current journey patterns. If the need to travel is reduced further (as it can be), these numbers change even more in favour of the sustainable modes.
That's why the failure of regional and national government to aim economic and transport strategy emphatically at reducing the need to travel is even more galling.
Yea totally agree. I work in this area, and the 40:40:20 rule is presented as an unattainable ideal, not something that can be surpassed through more aggressive and optimistic policy... but there you go. I for one am all for a more pedal-powered transport system, but the right people need to be convinced that this is a good and possible idea
-
really complex topic, everyone has their own reasons for travelling, and even if the roads are full of individuals schlepping around on their own--they will, at some time get there in that day. so feel they have won.
Basic fact is this, our government spends about a fifth of what other top cycling countries spend per population head on cycling-promotion/training/routes/facilities.
aside:-
all readers older than 25 carry on, rest keep surfing.I was told by a very experienced roadie, that after the war, when everyone biked here, and the CTC had clout they were asked by the then government about cycle lanes, facilities and seperate routes- the CTC responded to effectively say that 'we are fundamentally road riders and dont need them' and with that our authorities turned their backs on the developments that were going on in Euro countries that have led them to lead the world in cycling rates, while we have to rely on the few people in powerwith balls to push for changes.
all said and done on local journeys we can still enjoy the multiple benefits of riding whilst the schleppers carry on queuing, i hate queuing.
TheBrick(Tommy)
cookiesdonniedarko
|³|MA3K
Skülly
Dammit
deleted
tuiloui
Oliver Schick
n3il
The_Seldom_Killer-
Post a reply
About
Life Without Cars
Posted by
@(((toughknuckles)))
Article in the NY Times about a community in Germany where there are (nearly) no cars...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html