On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:45:33 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.
Ah, So you're like the average driver who parks within the pedestrian
crossing zig-zags at a local takeaway?
Nope.
The important thing is to have to
walk the minimum distance?
If you're carrying a lot of things it helps.
And you do this on every journey?
Quite frequently, yes.
I'm not talking about doing the weekly
shop or collecting DIY goods, etc. Just the normal daily journeys.
But what's a normal daily journey? I certainly don't shop weekly,
but several times a week.
In general, I see a lot of people struggling with carrying things on
public transport, even for daily journies.
Like the mums who double park on the school run
with a space a few yards away?
Nope.
But it's the logical extension of desiring door to door transport at all
times and practised by many motorists. Surely you've noticed this?
There is nothing wrong with desiring door to door transport. I was
also not restricting my thoughts to the inner city.
[snip]
First of all, emissions could be addressed substantially by switching
to alternative types of fuel than diesel.
Pollution in my context doesn't just refer to the output of the exhaust.
It includes noise and congestion. Those are both pollution to the
residents.
OK, so fundamentally this means that places of business should be
separated from places of residence.
Err, you've not been following my argument. It's the fact that many choose
to live a long way from their work that causes the commuting misery for
those who live in the areas commuted through. And like I said, many who do
this would be most upset if their quiet village or dormitory town was
subject to the same levels of through traffic throughout the day and
night.
I would turn this one around the other way and look at it with a big
picture view. The present ideas of limiting access by using a crude
taxation or restricting availability of parking are negative,
restricting of choice and can be nothing more than a short term
band-aid.
The better approaches would be
- to reduce the need for travel by incenting businesses and
individuals to increase home and local working. It is no longer
necessary in many businesses for people to physically move to a place
of work. There are some large companies like BT who have already
started down this path, and it is possible for many others.
- provide a better taxi system in major cities. This can be done by
providing a lower rate for journies requested by making a request by
phone or automated booking system with optimised positioning of cars.
A large proportion of the population has mobile phones, so this is
entirely possible. Businesses and other regular users at fixed
locations can have a code that they key into the phone, making human
involvement in booking unnecessary. I already mentioned
introduction of lower polluting vehicles.
- additional tiers of transport sizing. For example, Holland has a
system of "train taxis". You pay an additional amount to use one of
these when you buy a train ticket or pay separately. Up to 3 people
(or more in an MPV) plus what they are carrying are taken from a train
station or other pickup point to their individual destinations. It
takes longer than an individual taxi and less than a bus and is priced
accordingly.
These are all positive approaches that have been done and can be
extended. It isn't necessary to apply the negative taxation approach
that is being done today.
Secondly, cities in many other countries, and a few in the UK, have a
GPS and computer integrated booking system so that virtually all trips
are through a control centre and vehicle movements are optimised.
There is no need for taxis to be driving around empty for any length
of time looking for business.
You'll still need to stand around waiting for one at peak times - unless
there is an vast excess.
Doesn't seem to happen in cities that have implemented optimising
technology.
And those are comparable to London? It tends to be unique in that vast
chunks were built before the motor car - or before it became common. And
even the modern parts don't make provision for it in the same way as other
countries where land is less expensive.
It doesn't matter. Almost all of the Nordic cities have it, and
most have old areas with narrow streets. Closer to home, Sheffield
has it, although the system is not as sophisticated.
So them driving around looking for fares at other
times.
This is the whole point. They shouldn't be driving around looking for
fares. There should be no need. If there are no fares in the
computer controlled zone where they are and they want to work, they go
to one where there are.
So drive there empty? 'Cause they'll be just like buses - full in the rush
hour, empty outside it.
No. The whole point is that the driver chooses his next job when he
is close to dropping the current one. This means that the waiting
time for the new person is generally shorter and more consistent. If
there are no jobs where he ends up then he picks one from the next
nearest zone. That way, the empty time and distance is minimised and
most of the inefficiency of driving around looking for business is
eliminated.
So why not just spend that time walking to the station, etc.
They're rarely far away in most parts of London. Or take a bus to the
station.
This may be true if you want to start and end a journey within the
coverage of the bus or tube network
You're never far away from any of those - and you'd be surprised at how
many alternative routes that may exist if you do some research. Same as
travelling by car. I prefer to use the overground where possible and
minimise tube journeys, since I like to look about when travelling.
Something you can't do when driving. And I have both overground and tube
stations within easy reach. And a good bus service to the tube if I were
too lazy to walk.
Of course. If both of your points are within the area, then it may
work fine if you don't mind being crammed into the metal can of
whatever type.
It fails miserably if you are outside London and need to go to it, or
because of the arrangement of the national train network, transition
through it. Then it's a nightmare.
and as long as you are not
carrying things or mind standing squashed next to pushy, smelly
people.
I'm afraid your last sentence says it all. Everyone smells to some extent.
Same as dogs. You just don't notice your own one.
Of course. Which is why cramming lots of people into a small space is
so unpleasant.
But then the answer is not to travel in the rush hour. Why would you want
to if you're only going shopping?
This is an extension to my earlier point. Why do people need to
travel and why do they need to do so at specific times? This could
certainly be positvely influenced by incenting businesses to adopt
more flexible working practices.
--
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com