🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SLAGLE.92Jun5200130@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
|> In article <xm#lvyp.jps@netcom.com>, jps@netcom.com (John Serafin) writes:
|> 
|> > And everyone knows that showers and changing rooms cost much more and take
|> > up a lot more room than parking lots.
|> 
|> The issue is one of lost productive time which, if spent on a
|> regular basis, dwarfs both costs that you attempt to compare.
|> When a parking space has a comparable cost to the person whose
|> car occupies it, then you may reintroduce your point for further
|> discussion.

I'll leave aside for the moment the question of urban sprawl being 
exacerbated by the proliferation of multi-lane roads and parking lots
simply taking up space, except to note that the paved fraction in many
US cities exceeds 50%.  I personally would count the costs associated
with increasing travel distances and times with the direct cost of a 
parking space, if there were a reasonably accurate way to do so.

If one cycles to work, the need for other aerobic exercise is, 
at the very least, reduced.  That is, there is no need to go for a run 
after work, or to stop at a health club to use their stairmaster, or
whatever.  This can negate the time disadvantage of cycling for many 
people.  (The time lost would doubtless come out of the employees own
time and not the company's anyway; it would seem unethical to me to 
consider myself "at work" until I had showered and changed, just as it
would if I counted driving/cycling time as part of my 40 hours/week.)

Furthermore, studies have shown (I hate to start a statement this way, 
and I'll try to find references if someone chooses to debate the point)
that worker efficiency is higher among those in good physical condition.
So in that sense, a certain amount of lost time at work would be recovered
automatically.

Finally, as others have said before in this debate, I'm not advocating the
complete elimination of cars, just their sensible use.  I do not consider
having everyone drive their car to work by themselves every day "sensible
use".  I'll gladly concede that not everyone can use alternative transpor-
tation every day, and that there are those whose jobs require them to have
their car at work every day.  But what I fail to understand is why there
is such widespread and universal opposition among people who one would
assume have some interest in the environment or in public transit (readers
of this group and of [sci|misc].environment, for example) to even 
consider the possibility that maybe they don't need to drive their cars
as much as they do.

Here's an experiment for those of you who drive everywhere because "I
need to":  try, for a month, to make at least one trip in five on foot, 
by bicycle, by bus/train/etc, by carpool, or by any other means than 
a single-occupancy automobile.  As you prepare to leave the house,
think of reasons why you _don't_ need to take the car this trip.  You
might be surprised at how easily a little planning and/or resourcefulness
on your part can eliminate a lot of driving, and consequently a lot of
wear-and-tear on your car, the roads, the environment, etc.

Carl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Gooch                       |        Why am I inside at a keyboard when 
gooch@leland.stanford.edu        |        I could be outside riding bike?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------