4 responses to “The Ultimate in Low Energy Mobility”

1. Chris, I’m shocked. Getting what you need without having to move is the ultimate in ACCESS, not mobility.

   I can still shock people when I say that investment in ANY transport option is a sign of failure or inefficiencies in the system. In a perfect world, we’d never have to leave home to have all our needs met (roll over in bed and the coffee and donuts are at your elbow).

   Of course, most of us wouldn’t want to miss the excitement of traveling through our neighborhoods and experiencing the world. But it is important to remember that we build roads, bridges, rail lines to meet our needs NOT to build roads, bridges and rail lines for their own sakes.

   Reply

2. Rex, you’re the 3rd contributor to call me on the difference between mobility and accessibility. My fear is that the term accessibility is too transportation wonkish.

   So here’s a reader poll. How many folks know that when we talk about accessibility, we mean how people access jobs, services, etc., not how someone who is physically challenged gets on transit, etc?

   Reply

3. I understand the connotation of “accessibility” for transportion purposes, but do agree that it is getting heavy use with the wonks.

   It’s odd how this discussion comes off the issue of wifi in Portland—I am further intrigued by Rex Burkholder’s declaration of ACCESS and will think of other things I would like to ACCESS in my bed.

   Reply

4. I understand the connotation of “accessibility” for transportion purposes, but do agree that it is getting heavy use with the wonks.

   It’s odd how this discussion comes off the issue of wifi in Portland—I am further intrigued by Rex Burkholder’s declaration of ACCESS and will think of other things I would like to ACCESS in my bed.

   Reply