4 ms·

Nice article, thanks for sharing that! I also liked this tidbit from the linked paper (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf): > Crit

Nice article, thanks for sharing that! I also liked this tidbit from the linked paper (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf): > Critics sometimes argue that walking and cycling primarily provide recreational travel [...] “Why should I— either as a highway user-tax payer or a general taxpayer—have to pay for someone else’s hobby?” > Travel surveys indicate that about half of all [cycling/walking] is “recreational,” including travel for exercise, sport and cultural events, and socializing (Kuzmyak and Dill 2012; Litman 2012), but so is more than half of all motor vehicle travel (BTS 2002). [emphasis mine]

justinator 8y ago
That's very interesting. I'm somewhat in the outdoor industry, so the whole, ride-to-destination element of outdoor hobbies is a curious thing, in as much as the hobbies themselves - say, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, are in National Forest (or similar) which have Leave No Trace Principles. The companies in these industries really tout these eco/enviro-friendly activities as perhaps a alternative to four-wheel-drivin' or whatever. Preservation of these nature resources is another big topic these companies talk about. But if one was to just zooms out, a significant amount of time/money is spent just getting to the place the hobby is done in, and there's certainly a lot of environmentally detrimental overhead associated with driving for hours in a car. It always leaves me scratching my head, really. Although we've done a good job with saying that some areas are important and need to be protected, we're also happy enough to put in vast ribbons of concrete roadway to get to them. A bit of an aside, I apologize.
- frabbit 8y ago
  It's a great aside. And as the debate about over-crowding of the last remaining wildernesses is bound to develop, I wonder whether some "price/cost" which involves the effort expended to get to those places is appropriate.
  - justinator 8y ago
    It's going to be an interesting conversation, and I fear: a bit messy. One of the ways that you illustrate value in say, a Wilderness area or a National Park is by allowing visitation, so people can see first hand how unique an area is. If merely getting to the area is hard to do, these places won't be seen as so valuable to the general population (higher classes will have no problem getting to them, so it because a class issue all of a sudden). At least in the States, what we desperately need is a lower impact mass transportation system. I've heard all the arguments against railways (etc), and I don't disagree there's good points in those arguments. But it's not something I see pro-environment special interest groups that are around the outdoor industry really push. One such is, https://protectourwinters.org/ https://protectourwinters.org/ I actually don't know what these people do - they seem like they want to be lobbyists, but I think it's just grass-roots call of action type stuff to get people out to vote. Which I think is a fine idea, but there's so much more we can do.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Good observations. Personally though, I think this is kind of the "proper" usage of a passenger car: getting out of the city/town, but not going to another. There's no viable mass alternative to getting out to the woods -- this is the proverbial last-mile transport, even though in reality it's a lot of miles. And if you're driving a gasoline car, the cleanest way to do it is at a consistent high speed. Hybrids, of course, are even better. It's not really viable yet, as far as I know, to use a full electric for a weekend camping trip. Charging isn't widespread enough and takes too long. (I'd love to be corrected on this, though!) It's also worth noting that some amount of infrastructure in these areas is necessary for caretakers: rangers/foresters and firefighters need roads. Resource extraction (logging) too. Except for the real high-volume locations like Yellowstone, I'd venture a guess that most of the roads in conservation areas were not built particularly for visitors.

justinator 8y ago

That's very interesting. I'm somewhat in the outdoor industry, so the whole, ride-to-destination element of outdoor hobbies is a curious thing, in as much as the hobbies themselves - say, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, are in National Forest (or similar) which have Leave No Trace Principles. The companies in these industries really tout these eco/enviro-friendly activities as perhaps a alternative to four-wheel-drivin' or whatever. Preservation of these nature resources is another big topic these companies talk about. But if one was to just zooms out, a significant amount of time/money is spent just getting to the place the hobby is done in, and there's certainly a lot of environmentally detrimental overhead associated with driving for hours in a car. It always leaves me scratching my head, really. Although we've done a good job with saying that some areas are important and need to be protected, we're also happy enough to put in vast ribbons of concrete roadway to get to them. A bit of an aside, I apologize.

frabbit 8y ago
It's a great aside. And as the debate about over-crowding of the last remaining wildernesses is bound to develop, I wonder whether some "price/cost" which involves the effort expended to get to those places is appropriate.
- justinator 8y ago
  It's going to be an interesting conversation, and I fear: a bit messy. One of the ways that you illustrate value in say, a Wilderness area or a National Park is by allowing visitation, so people can see first hand how unique an area is. If merely getting to the area is hard to do, these places won't be seen as so valuable to the general population (higher classes will have no problem getting to them, so it because a class issue all of a sudden). At least in the States, what we desperately need is a lower impact mass transportation system. I've heard all the arguments against railways (etc), and I don't disagree there's good points in those arguments. But it's not something I see pro-environment special interest groups that are around the outdoor industry really push. One such is, https://protectourwinters.org/ https://protectourwinters.org/ I actually don't know what these people do - they seem like they want to be lobbyists, but I think it's just grass-roots call of action type stuff to get people out to vote. Which I think is a fine idea, but there's so much more we can do.
wool_gather 8y ago
Good observations. Personally though, I think this is kind of the "proper" usage of a passenger car: getting out of the city/town, but not going to another. There's no viable mass alternative to getting out to the woods -- this is the proverbial last-mile transport, even though in reality it's a lot of miles. And if you're driving a gasoline car, the cleanest way to do it is at a consistent high speed. Hybrids, of course, are even better. It's not really viable yet, as far as I know, to use a full electric for a weekend camping trip. Charging isn't widespread enough and takes too long. (I'd love to be corrected on this, though!) It's also worth noting that some amount of infrastructure in these areas is necessary for caretakers: rangers/foresters and firefighters need roads. Resource extraction (logging) too. Except for the real high-volume locations like Yellowstone, I'd venture a guess that most of the roads in conservation areas were not built particularly for visitors.