Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: Adrian on 1 Jan 2010 12:42 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > The point about vertical cities is that there are no meaningful >> > distances to cover. Lifts would bring the goods up from the ground >> > where it is then distributed at each level by fork lift trucks. >> How tall are you thinking these lifts will be? >> >> How will the supplies get to the vertical city? How will the people who >> produce those supplies get to work? Where will they live? How will the >> city's infrastructure be maintained? >> >> Indeed, how will this city be built? How tall will this city be? What >> sort of footprint area? What construction? > Suggest you check the links I gave previously. No, Duhg, I'm asking _you_ for _your_ understanding and opinion.
From: Doug on 2 Jan 2010 01:56 On 1 Jan, 17:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > > >> > The point about vertical cities is that there are no meaningful > >> > distances to cover. Lifts would bring the goods up from the ground > >> > where it is then distributed at each level by fork lift trucks. > >> How tall are you thinking these lifts will be? > > >> How will the supplies get to the vertical city? How will the people who > >> produce those supplies get to work? Where will they live? How will the > >> city's infrastructure be maintained? > > >> Indeed, how will this city be built? How tall will this city be? What > >> sort of footprint area? What construction? > > Suggest you check the links I gave previously. > > No, Duhg, I'm asking _you_ for _your_ understanding and opinion. > Well, Adrain, I can only go by the links I gave. Though you could of course also do further searches to get any extra information you require. It seems logical though, at a time of overpopulation and grossly excessive mass car use, to built upwards instead of sideways, perhaps with aerial linkways between towers instead of congested roadways below. In this way perhaps pedestrians could begin to catch up with the ample provision already provided for drivers in the form of motorways, etc. Of course, these vertical cities would provide a complete range of facilities to cater for home, work and leisure, thus removing most excuses commonly used for excessive and harmful travel. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Travel broadens the damage.
From: The Medway Handyman on 2 Jan 2010 06:32 Doug wrote: > On 1 Jan, 17:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were saying: >> >>>>> The point about vertical cities is that there are no meaningful >>>>> distances to cover. Lifts would bring the goods up from the ground >>>>> where it is then distributed at each level by fork lift trucks. >>>> How tall are you thinking these lifts will be? >> >>>> How will the supplies get to the vertical city? How will the >>>> people who produce those supplies get to work? Where will they >>>> live? How will the city's infrastructure be maintained? >> >>>> Indeed, how will this city be built? How tall will this city be? >>>> What sort of footprint area? What construction? >>> Suggest you check the links I gave previously. >> >> No, Duhg, I'm asking _you_ for _your_ understanding and opinion. >> > Well, Adrain, I can only go by the links I gave. Though you could of > course also do further searches to get any extra information you > require. > > It seems logical though, at a time of overpopulation and grossly > excessive mass car use, to built upwards instead of sideways, perhaps > with aerial linkways between towers instead of congested roadways > below. In this way perhaps pedestrians could begin to catch up with > the ample provision already provided for drivers in the form of > motorways, etc. Of course, these vertical cities would provide a > complete range of facilities to cater for home, work and leisure, thus > removing most excuses commonly used for excessive and harmful travel. Where do we find the money to build them? -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: Tony Dragon on 2 Jan 2010 08:57 The Medway Handyman wrote: > Doug wrote: >> On 1 Jan, 17:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >>> were saying: >>> >>>>>> The point about vertical cities is that there are no meaningful >>>>>> distances to cover. Lifts would bring the goods up from the ground >>>>>> where it is then distributed at each level by fork lift trucks. >>>>> How tall are you thinking these lifts will be? >>>>> How will the supplies get to the vertical city? How will the >>>>> people who produce those supplies get to work? Where will they >>>>> live? How will the city's infrastructure be maintained? >>>>> Indeed, how will this city be built? How tall will this city be? >>>>> What sort of footprint area? What construction? >>>> Suggest you check the links I gave previously. >>> No, Duhg, I'm asking _you_ for _your_ understanding and opinion. >>> >> Well, Adrain, I can only go by the links I gave. Though you could of >> course also do further searches to get any extra information you >> require. >> >> It seems logical though, at a time of overpopulation and grossly >> excessive mass car use, to built upwards instead of sideways, perhaps >> with aerial linkways between towers instead of congested roadways >> below. In this way perhaps pedestrians could begin to catch up with >> the ample provision already provided for drivers in the form of >> motorways, etc. Of course, these vertical cities would provide a >> complete range of facilities to cater for home, work and leisure, thus >> removing most excuses commonly used for excessive and harmful travel. > > Where do we find the money to build them? > > Tax cyclists? -- Tony Dragon
From: Doug on 2 Jan 2010 13:11
On 2 Jan, 11:32, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 1 Jan, 17:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > >> were saying: > > >>>>> The point about vertical cities is that there are no meaningful > >>>>> distances to cover. Lifts would bring the goods up from the ground > >>>>> where it is then distributed at each level by fork lift trucks. > >>>> How tall are you thinking these lifts will be? > > >>>> How will the supplies get to the vertical city? How will the > >>>> people who produce those supplies get to work? Where will they > >>>> live? How will the city's infrastructure be maintained? > > >>>> Indeed, how will this city be built? How tall will this city be? > >>>> What sort of footprint area? What construction? > >>> Suggest you check the links I gave previously. > > >> No, Duhg, I'm asking _you_ for _your_ understanding and opinion. > > > Well, Adrain, I can only go by the links I gave. Though you could of > > course also do further searches to get any extra information you > > require. > > > It seems logical though, at a time of overpopulation and grossly > > excessive mass car use, to built upwards instead of sideways, perhaps > > with aerial linkways between towers instead of congested roadways > > below. In this way perhaps pedestrians could begin to catch up with > > the ample provision already provided for drivers in the form of > > motorways, etc. Of course, these vertical cities would provide a > > complete range of facilities to cater for home, work and leisure, thus > > removing most excuses commonly used for excessive and harmful travel. > > Where do we find the money to build them? > Well the money saved on future roadbuilding would help but I guess for the time being it is down to oil-rich nations to pioneer them. There was even a vertical city mentioned on TV news today so it looks as if it is beginning to happen and once again people will live within walking distance of their work and leisure and have much less need to spend time commuting, congesting and polluting. Here is another one: "OMA design multifunctional vertical city in Rotterdam Part of an effort to regenerate the Kop van Zuid area of Rotterdam, these three multifunctional towers will feature space for corporate offices, residential apartments, a hotel, restaurants, cinema and retail shopping creating a bustling vertical city that is active 24 hours a day..." -- Car Free Cities http://www.carfree.com/ Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution to the vexing problem of urban automobiles. |