[sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: Re: 'Amsterdam mostbicycle-friendly city'

[Daryl Oster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:21 AM
> To: WCN list; SFBIKE List List; communication at bikeleague.org;
> bill at bikeleague.org; Elizabeth Falvy; Sustran Resource Centre
> Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: Re: 'Amsterdam mostbicycle-
> friendly city'
...
> So we can assume that Virgin has airplanes, spaceships
> <http://www.virgingalactic.com/flash.html>, etc to these cities. It is
> being used to promote their products, and last time I checked there is a
> nothing environmentally-friendly (at least) about flying somewhere in
> order to ride your bike. But of course they also fly to Bogota and other
> cities where bicycling has recently increased in quality and quantity in
> a big way...
> 
> The Virgin winners were based on criteria from the League of American
> Bicyclists <http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/>
> 
> Western bias? Perhaps...
> 

Todd,

Owning and using a couple of them my self, I have nothing against bikes.
The truth is that they make a much bigger footprint per mile than today's
much more efficient modes.  And it is true that while trains improved on
muscle powered transport efficiency, and cars and aircraft improved on
trains, so will new modes greatly improve on autos and airplanes (for
instance our patented Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) technology). 

In addition to owning bikes, I own a car and a motorcycle, and I used to own
an airplane.  My airplane (a home built KR2) was probably the greenest
vehicle I have ever owned.  Hauling two people, it would achieve 35mpg
efficiency at 140mph.  Since drag is proportional to velocity differential
squared; the KR2 was 4 times the efficiency of my Toyota Corolla that gets
35mpg hauling the same two people at 70mph.   The airplane (built mostly of
wood) took an eighth the energy and materials to build as the car did.  It
used a recycled automobile engine (VW).  The KR2 required no roads -- only a
GREEN grass airstrip.  Also the KR2 could fly straight over mountains or
lakes to a destination usually requiring fewer miles for the same trip by
car -- in short, a very low environmental foot print.

Basic per kilometer impact comparisons (that I have presented to [sustran]
in the past) show that a trip by bike to a distant location impacts the
environment much more than an air flight, train ride, or car trip carrying
the occupant and bike the same distance would.  Walking is even worse impact
than riding a bike, and riding a horse much worse than that.  

In days when muscle powered transport was the only option, marching armies
would strip the land of anything green with a wide decimated swath marking
their path-- now far bigger armies travel greater distances via train,
truck, bus, or aircraft with far less of a footprint.  

Of greater concern than the size of the footprint, is the reason for the
footprint of any given mode.  For instance, if a mode with a large footprint
(like walking) were used productively to mitigate many smaller foot prints
left by cars and aircraft (for instance by planting trees, installing
erosion control, etc).  

Carbon, and global warming (GW), often supposed to be human caused, is of
little concern compared to much more immediate and clearly proven
transportation concerns like: gross air, ground, and water pollution; and
running out of resources.  IMO, global warming offers more likely benefits
than harm for humans.  I submit as proof the general knowledge of geologist
and climatologists that show that since the depth of the last major ice age
35,000 years ago, the sea level has risen about 200m.  

It is strange that people are so concerned about the predicted increase of
0.2m to 0.6m sea level in the next 100 years, since this is just the average
linear range of change over the last 8k years (plotted across the high
points or the low points).  About 80% of the increase in sea level since the
ice age occurred from 25k years ago to about 8k years ago.  The periods of
the fastest global warming (15k years ago) correlate with the rise of
civilization so there is good evidence that GW has more benefits to humans
than harm.  15k years ago, there was a thousand year long period where the
sea level increased about 40m -- 7-15 times greater than the present rate.  

Legends of that ancient global flooding persist in most cultures -- and it
is interesting that some humans of the time blamed human iniquity for being
the root of the cause -- angering God who flooded the earth to cleanse the
sins.  Perhaps it is true, and perhaps also true that the present age will
end in fire; this thought has some basis in science, as climatologists who
focus their studies on long term changes generally agree that most long term
major shifts in earth climate is primarily caused by friction forces of
plate tectonics (ample references can be supplied upon request).  

I think we can all agree that the footprints of trains, automobiles and
aircraft are causing harmful impact, and that drastic changes are needed to
protect the environment.  I hope we can also agree than returning to old
ways of less efficient transportation is not likely to help.  

Many bike advocates also advocate trains; they should take the trouble to
confirm that Sir Richard Branson's Virgin, in addition to improving air
travel efficiency, has made colossal financial commitments to improving
train travel in England.  


Daryl Oster
(c) 2007  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com