Dear Groveton:
Unlike Jim B, I do not have a way to contact you other than via BRB.
I am with you 100% on the new “Party” and the guidelines make good sense on first reading.
In our household, my wife and partner manages the funds so I cannot commit a dollar amount at this time. Perhaps 50% of our annual book royalites?
On a second topic: Thank you for test driving some of the terms in GLOSSARY. You are getting a good grasp of what Funcamental Change will mean.
Do not be dissuaded by sillyness like 2% shared-vehicle system potential. In a Balanced Community with Villages served by a high capacity system it would be closer to 90%. Even in a lower intensity Balanced Community the number would exceed 50%.
There are two things driving down the conventional wisdom perception.
One a shared vehicle system served Village the intensity made possible by the system converts many vehicle trips to pedestrian trips. We have pointed this out in most of our long columns on shared vehicle systems.
Second the whole conception of what a household is and how it obtains Mobility and Access has not been updated in traffic generation models.
I will be posting one more note on the density string when we have time but wanted to get a word to you before heading for the Farmers Market and then the Core for a chained trip with 9 stops. One way we cut VMT.
Keep up the good work…
EMR
