So I'm coming out of Hy-Vee. I come to my bike to unlock it (I had it locked to a cart holder, it's the best and most out of the way spot at this Hy-Vee, plus my u-lock works on it). I set my bags down and behind me I hear:
"Hey Patty, remember when you hit that guy on a bike? You should hit another guy on a bike."
It continued on along the same lines. The mother (I presume based on the number of kids and the use of a minivan and ability to ignore stupidity) said nothing.
The girl must have been 7 or 8. Maybe a bit older. I don't think she was joking.
I would never listen to death threats from my kid. This sounded like childhood aggression out of control. Unlike more emotionally healthy kids she doesn't hit, spit, run, or fight. She instead tries to tear people down from the inside.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
New Urbanism for the non-green
What's new urbanism? Basically it's a movement to build neighborhoods the way we used to:
1. Apartments
2. Condos and other shared wall structures
3. Small lots (you may have no yard)
4. Bad parking
Why would you ever want this? The medium (large actually) lot single family home with a two car garage is American right? It's like Apple pie and a cheeseburger. Well, yes, it is. It's bad for you.
Here's the one solid reason why you want this sort of neighborhood: America gave you 4 wheels and a freeway, then it charged you $5,000 a year to pay for it (actually more, but the extra costs - mostly parking - are hard to pin down). God gave you two legs. Then he built you to use them. Seriously, he built you to use them.
The main advantage of new urbanism is the ability to walk most places.
Now, there's one obvious problem: Work. Every other destination can be transplanted (even family, which moves for reasons outside your control). But your job if your life right? This is in a way the sacrifice of our intellectual working society: Your sort of stuck in your career path because you know so much about it and you can't just work anywhere.
Well, that's a problem that's up to you to solve. This isn't an argument that new urbanism can solve all of our travel woes or that everyone should live in these neighborhoods. This is an appeal to explain why you should desire to live in this style of neighborhood. An explanation of why it is attractive.
The solution part should fall into place as a majority of us stop taking up so much space in our large single family dwellings. How many houses do you pass on your way to work? Now, how many driveways? How many gigantic (mostly empty) free parking lots? People don't live in driveways, expensive ($5,000 or so annually) cars do.
The video is a bit more, um, eco-centered.
Video.
I'm thinking one major problem is a total lack of availability. There just aren't hardly any of these neighborhoods. And they're expensive. Not because of the cost of supply but because of the level of, largely ignored, demand. I'd love to live in one of these places if, well, Lincoln had much to offer. Mostly they just have crummy apartments near downtown and a few houses near downtown (on medium, actually large, lots).
It really should save you a fortune to live in this style of neighborhood. Maybe when it's done being a hoity toity fad it'll become a utilitarian feature again.
1. Apartments
2. Condos and other shared wall structures
3. Small lots (you may have no yard)
4. Bad parking
Why would you ever want this? The medium (large actually) lot single family home with a two car garage is American right? It's like Apple pie and a cheeseburger. Well, yes, it is. It's bad for you.
Here's the one solid reason why you want this sort of neighborhood: America gave you 4 wheels and a freeway, then it charged you $5,000 a year to pay for it (actually more, but the extra costs - mostly parking - are hard to pin down). God gave you two legs. Then he built you to use them. Seriously, he built you to use them.
The main advantage of new urbanism is the ability to walk most places.
Now, there's one obvious problem: Work. Every other destination can be transplanted (even family, which moves for reasons outside your control). But your job if your life right? This is in a way the sacrifice of our intellectual working society: Your sort of stuck in your career path because you know so much about it and you can't just work anywhere.
Well, that's a problem that's up to you to solve. This isn't an argument that new urbanism can solve all of our travel woes or that everyone should live in these neighborhoods. This is an appeal to explain why you should desire to live in this style of neighborhood. An explanation of why it is attractive.
The solution part should fall into place as a majority of us stop taking up so much space in our large single family dwellings. How many houses do you pass on your way to work? Now, how many driveways? How many gigantic (mostly empty) free parking lots? People don't live in driveways, expensive ($5,000 or so annually) cars do.
The video is a bit more, um, eco-centered.
Video.
I'm thinking one major problem is a total lack of availability. There just aren't hardly any of these neighborhoods. And they're expensive. Not because of the cost of supply but because of the level of, largely ignored, demand. I'd love to live in one of these places if, well, Lincoln had much to offer. Mostly they just have crummy apartments near downtown and a few houses near downtown (on medium, actually large, lots).
It really should save you a fortune to live in this style of neighborhood. Maybe when it's done being a hoity toity fad it'll become a utilitarian feature again.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Debunking Debunking Portland, Part 3
Linkie.
This is actually a well written article. I only have one problem. The source he's using is only showing $2 billion dollars of federal expenditure on roads. There's no way that's even close.
According to this link (same source): They're spending about $16 billion on roads.
You'll also notice from that link that lots of our fuel taxes don't go to road funding. And, other taxes do go to road funding. I think it's odd too.
This is actually a well written article. I only have one problem. The source he's using is only showing $2 billion dollars of federal expenditure on roads. There's no way that's even close.
According to this link (same source): They're spending about $16 billion on roads.
You'll also notice from that link that lots of our fuel taxes don't go to road funding. And, other taxes do go to road funding. I think it's odd too.
Debunking Debunking Portland, Part 2
Linkie.
This article is all about how unsafe light rail is. I'll sum it up for you: People get hit by trains.
The article is misleading because it presents deaths per passenger miles. This leads the reader to believe it's the likelihood of dieing from riding the train.
All of their 19 deaths were people hit by the train, none were riding the train at the time. Some weren't even at the train station.
In the US, about 4,000 pedestrians are killed each year. About 600 cyclists as well. A larger city, like Sacramento, can expect to have over 100 pedestrian fatalities.
They should look a little harder. Trains do crash, but I'd bet you're less likely to die in a train crash (per mile) than in a car crash.
This article is all about how unsafe light rail is. I'll sum it up for you: People get hit by trains.
The article is misleading because it presents deaths per passenger miles. This leads the reader to believe it's the likelihood of dieing from riding the train.
All of their 19 deaths were people hit by the train, none were riding the train at the time. Some weren't even at the train station.
In the US, about 4,000 pedestrians are killed each year. About 600 cyclists as well. A larger city, like Sacramento, can expect to have over 100 pedestrian fatalities.
They should look a little harder. Trains do crash, but I'd bet you're less likely to die in a train crash (per mile) than in a car crash.
Debunking Debunking Portland, Part 1
Linkie.
First I'd like to say this is an interesting site. It's well researched, they've found some sources of info I was previously unaware of. Now, onto the debunking.
Basically this page is trying to prove that it's inefficient to ride the bus or take the train. I'm just going to talk about the bus (we have buses here, we don't have trains).
They present a few vehicles:
1. The Honda Insight, as a hybrid example. Unfortunately, this car wasn't made anymore when the article came out (2006 was the last model year, so 2005 was the last production year). Also, unfortunately, there's no hybrid that's so efficient today. The Honda contains 1.57 people.
1. A bus, with 9 people on it.
1. A normal small car, with 1.57 people.
They point out that for the last 30 years buses have gotten far less efficient and cars have become far more efficient. That's almost true. Look at table 2.11: Buses have gotten slightly less efficient (Actually, they probably seat more. I've been in buses from almost every decade and the modern ones are roomy). Yet their per person energy has grown far less efficient. Simple division tells us that the average bus is transporting 9 passengers. I've been on a few buses in my life, and a normal size bus is meant to carry 80 people. It seats around 25 people (which is about how many it takes to be as efficient as the Insight).
I must agree with their conclusion though: If people drove smaller cars it would probably do more to reduce energy use than bus riding. And the reason is simple: People won't ride buses. I think there are a host of reasons:
1. The stigma.
2. The chicken and the egg problem.
3. Buses are run by cities, which is painfully stupid. The city of Lincoln actually cut its routes back due to high fuel costs.
So, ride the bus. It'll run the same route anyway. And, if you were the person who tipped the scales to add another bus to the route then it's safe to assume they have a decent passenger ratio on your route. Buses, as your head is telling you, are pretty efficient if people ride them.
First I'd like to say this is an interesting site. It's well researched, they've found some sources of info I was previously unaware of. Now, onto the debunking.
Basically this page is trying to prove that it's inefficient to ride the bus or take the train. I'm just going to talk about the bus (we have buses here, we don't have trains).
They present a few vehicles:
1. The Honda Insight, as a hybrid example. Unfortunately, this car wasn't made anymore when the article came out (2006 was the last model year, so 2005 was the last production year). Also, unfortunately, there's no hybrid that's so efficient today. The Honda contains 1.57 people.
1. A bus, with 9 people on it.
1. A normal small car, with 1.57 people.
They point out that for the last 30 years buses have gotten far less efficient and cars have become far more efficient. That's almost true. Look at table 2.11: Buses have gotten slightly less efficient (Actually, they probably seat more. I've been in buses from almost every decade and the modern ones are roomy). Yet their per person energy has grown far less efficient. Simple division tells us that the average bus is transporting 9 passengers. I've been on a few buses in my life, and a normal size bus is meant to carry 80 people. It seats around 25 people (which is about how many it takes to be as efficient as the Insight).
I must agree with their conclusion though: If people drove smaller cars it would probably do more to reduce energy use than bus riding. And the reason is simple: People won't ride buses. I think there are a host of reasons:
1. The stigma.
2. The chicken and the egg problem.
3. Buses are run by cities, which is painfully stupid. The city of Lincoln actually cut its routes back due to high fuel costs.
So, ride the bus. It'll run the same route anyway. And, if you were the person who tipped the scales to add another bus to the route then it's safe to assume they have a decent passenger ratio on your route. Buses, as your head is telling you, are pretty efficient if people ride them.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Voting Present
Obama's "Present" Voting Record.
Interesting article. The main takeaway is this: Obama voted "present" 130 times over 8 years within the Illinois legislature. He voted about 4,000 times in that office.
So, the "present" votes issue is not an issue. It's spin.
Interesting article. The main takeaway is this: Obama voted "present" 130 times over 8 years within the Illinois legislature. He voted about 4,000 times in that office.
So, the "present" votes issue is not an issue. It's spin.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
You Have To Love Robert Hurst
A very depressing read. But maybe it's not, maybe we need some tough love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)