Remind me, what was the 'real' result your means led to?
I've pointed out that over a 30 year period that has seen the RPI more than double and the costs of public transport rise by 50% - in real terms - the cost of private motoring has fallen by 10%.
I've explained that the dominance of the private car isn't the normative, spontaneously arising natural order of things, but a consequence of generations of political decision making favouring the car; "the americans are rich, let's copy them". I've shown that where investment is spread more equitably between different modes of transport to permit
choice, modal shifts in personal transport are achieved; the suppression of other modes of transport is evidence of preference being given to motoring.
If the cost of RTA casualties (@£19bn) isn't excluded from the costs column in Newbury's 'Fair Payment from Road-users' a yawning deficit (10 - 20 billion) opens up. That's without considering the health bill from 38,500 annual victims of air pollution, 45,000 victims of CHD caused by sedentary lifestyle choices, and an obesity epidemic (bear in mind cars make us fat) with attendent increases in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes, stroke and sundry cancers.
And I've said I'm more persuaded by the Green's analysis than by the peevish anecdotes of safespeeders
http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_tr ... ubsidy.htm
This is pretty much all upthread. You didn't respond. So this
Quote:
You have yet to demonstrate any level of public subsidy for private motoring. The best you could come up with is a parking space provided by your employer, who happens to be a public agency. It is disingenuous to continue making these unsubstantiated claims when you have been given every opportunity to back them up!
makes you look something of a jerk, if you don't mind me saying.
Copenhagen and London? Chortle. Do you
really want to do this? Look, were London the only city in the UK (and were cycling not growing fast there) you may have a point. As it is, London is the only UK city above Copenhagen on Mercer's list. So by your, er, 'analysis' all other UK cities, being far cheaper than Copenhagen to live in, will have a denser urban environment and be more amenable to a human powered transport revolution than Copenhagen. Which isn't really the point you were trying to make, is it? Shame about London though. Will you tell the growing tide of London cycle commuters that London is too costly and insufficiently dense an urban environment for them to be getting around by bike? Could you wait 'til I've off-loaded my Condor shares? A black day in the offing for the burgeoning London bike trade once Robin's put everyone straight.
Consider the claim fastidiously substantiated? Hey safespeeders, your search for a successor to Paul Smith is over. This is your man, get him anointed.
You're not doing very well with your homework. This, from Wiki, should help you get started:
Quote:
Colloquially, sustainable transport is used to describe all forms of transport which minimise emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants. It can refer to public transport, car sharing, walking and cycling as well as technology such as electric and hybrid cars and biodiesel.
Will you be OK from here?
Are we done? Pretty much I'd say.