Blog
From the blog
Are the Cornish a bunch of petrolheads?
The Department for Transport has released the following stats to us.
They show the percentage of trips of under 2 miles that were done by car and on foot in different areas in 2006 (the remainder, a surprisingly small percentage, were bus, taxi trips etc.).
| Walk | Car | |
| North East | 59 | 34 |
| NW & Merseyside | 55 | 38 |
| Yorkshire & Humberside | 58 | 35 |
| East Midlands | 59 | 35 |
| West Midlands | 55 | 39 |
| Eastern | 54 | 39 |
| Greater London | 61 | 28 |
| South East | 56 | 39 |
| South West | 53 | 41 |
| England | 57 | 37 |
| Wales | 54 | 42 |
| Scotland | 56 | 37 |
But as car ownership in London is much lower than the national average, and (because?) public transport is so relatively good, it's not surprising that Londoners are less likely to make short trips by car. Plus disincentives like the Congestion Charge. And I suppose the prevalence of those things called pavements that make walking in London a much more viable option than walking in, say, rural parts of the South West (for 'functional' trips, rather than leisure ones, that is).
The more you look into it, the more complex it gets (a good thing we pulled the “Lofty Londoners more likely to walk than Witless Welsh” press release…)
But the stand-out fact is that so many of us, wherever we live, are jumping into cars for short trips – and these are trips of under 2 miles, so many will be just a mile or so. Sure, if it's pissing with rain, you need to transport a load, you're doing a multi-part journey, or you've got a health/age reason preventing you from walking, the car (if you have one) will often be best.
But surely a good chunk of those car trips could be done on foot – and time, convenience, health, cost and environmental factors can all, in varying measures, add up to a pretty compelling case for that switch.
We hope walkit.com is helping to make that case, for you, and any of your friends smitten by Messrs Clarkson, Hammond and May.
Walking is bad for the planet
If it's only greenhouse gas emissions you're worried about, then it may be better to drive than to walk.
That is the view of Chris Goodall, venture capitalist, Green party member and author of 'Ten Technologies to Save the Planet'.
His rationale caused a bit of a media stir back in August 07 (leading to this response).
This is his argument:“Walking three miles uses about 180 calories. Replacing the energy used, assuming you don’t want to lose weight, would mean eating about 100 grammes of beef. Of course, it depends on the cut of meat, and how much fat it contains, but this figure is reasonably typical of beef in British shops. The scientists in Japan give a figure of 36 kg of emissions for a kilo of meat, so a portion of 100 grammes equates to about 3.6kg. This is the first part of the calculation – it shows that one 3 mile walk generates 3.6kg of emissions if one replaces the energy lost with beef.
What if one drove the 3 miles instead, and so didn’t need the extra food? The average UK car emits about 290 grammes (0.29kg) of CO2 for every mile travelled. A 3 mile trip therefore generates 0.87 kg of emissions. This is about a quarter of the equivalent emissions from walking. And if there are two of you, and you share the car, then walking would be eight times as bad for the climate.”
It's an interesting point of view. But there are a lot of assumptions (such as you're not walking to lose weight, you replace your lost energy by eating beef), and he doesn't take into account the energy needed to manufacture the petrol/the car, or the energy impacts of health problems caused by inactive lifestyles.
He gets quite a lot of flak from many of those commenting (c.350) on the Times article.
His point about the energy intensity of many types of food production is sound. But it's a shame he contrived a 'car v walking' argument to prove his point, when encouraging people to walk more provides so many other personal and social benefits.
Let us know if you think we should change the (approximate) CO2 information we display above our route maps.
Bit parky...
Trafalgar Square
Which is England's second city?
You may have seen in our newsletter that someone contacted us last year complaining that we launched in Birmingham before Manchester (because the latter is “now widely regarded as England's 2nd city”).
But John Robson has written in to us to say we've got it all wrong:“A Brummie was asked which city is the Second City of the UK. 'It's Birmingham of course', said the Brummie. 'The city is officially the second largest city in the country. There is no doubt about it'.
The same question was asked in Manchester. 'It's definitely Manchester' was the reply. 'It's all happening here, ask anyone outside of the country which is the Second City of the UK and they would say Manchester. The city is world famous'.
Finally, a Liverpudlian was asked the question, what is UK's Second City?. 'Now let me think' said the Liverpudlian. After a brief consideration the reply was – 'yep, it's got to be London'.”
Slightly later than planned, we'll be launching in Manchester very soon, and hopefully Liverpool later in the year.
We're recruiting
A new year and a new job opportunity at walkit.com.
We're looking for someone to help us take the site onto bigger and better things, based at our offices in the Custard Factory in Birmingham.
We need a motivated and skilled person to join our technical team. Someone to help with new launches in UK towns and cities by digitising geographic information from aerial photography, researching city-specific information and helping manage feedback from users.
A good eye for detail, good concentration and solid investigative skills are essential, as are excellent written and verbal communication skills.
Think you might be the person for the job? Or know someone else who might be? Then please drop us a line on jobs@walkit.com
