I don't understand why it is greener to walk?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5390418.stm

Do they stop running the tubes or buses if enough people decided to
walk. I can't see how this helps the environment.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
I don't understand why it is greener to walk?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5390418.stm

Do they stop running the tubes or buses if enough people decided to
walk. I can't see how this helps the environment.


Directly: the train/bus doesn't need to use energy to accelerate 80kg
of you every time it speeds up, nor to raise 80kg of you up any hills
it may climb.

Indirectly: if enough people decide to walk, the number of passengers
on the bus route/tube line will be lower, and therefore fewer costly
and resource-intensive expansion schemes will be required (it might
also be possible to cut frequencies and hence the total number of
services).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, John B wrote:

Kev wrote:

I don't understand why it is greener to walk?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5390418.stm

Do they stop running the tubes or buses if enough people decided to
walk. I can't see how this helps the environment.

Directly: the train/bus doesn't need to use energy to accelerate 80kg of
you every time it speeds up, nor to raise 80kg of you up any hills it
may climb.

And taxis wouldn't have to make the trip at all.

tom

--
The girlfriend of my friend is my enemy.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, John B wrote:

Kev wrote:

I don't understand why it is greener to walk?

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5390418.stm

Do they stop running the tubes or buses if enough people decided to
walk. I can't see how this helps the environment.

Directly: the train/bus doesn't need to use energy to accelerate 80kg of
you every time it speeds up, nor to raise 80kg of you up any hills it
may climb.

And taxis wouldn't have to make the trip at all.

tom

Asides from that, too many people are too snobby to walk. If you
missed a Baker Street train take the Marylebone and walk for 4 minutes.
No 2 stations in London are far apart, and often its quicker to walk
street level than trek through the station to the interchange line, and
then back up all the escalators at the other end.

In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Directly: the train/bus doesn't need to use energy to accelerate
80kg of you every time it speeds up, nor to raise 80kg of you up any
hills it may climb.

But, AIUI, you use less energy (food) cycling than walking.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Directly: the train/bus doesn't need to use energy to accelerate
80kg of you every time it speeds up, nor to raise 80kg of you up any
hills it may climb.

But, AIUI, you use less energy (food) cycling than walking.

Sounds right - but then the construction of the bike itself requires
energy (in the construction process itself, in extraction and transport
of the raw materials, and in transport of the bike to the shop). I
imagine that it's a close call which depends on the lifetime of the bike.


--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article , (Dave
Arquati) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

But, AIUI, you use less energy (food) cycling than walking.

Sounds right - but then the construction of the bike itself
requires energy (in the construction process itself, in extraction
and transport of the raw materials, and in transport of the bike to
the shop). I imagine that it's a close call which depends on the
lifetime of the bike.

All true.

--
Colin Rosenstiel