U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2013, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 9,944,871 times
Reputation: 2978

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy View Post
Additionally, do you really need a study to tell you that a person jumping into a car from an attached garage to get EVERYWHERE they need to go, is getting the same amount of required exercise as the person who walks to a bus/train/subway stop, walks to corner grocery store, etc.

Most studies suggest a person needs a minimum of 20 minutes exercise each day. That can be brisk walking. If the two people above do not set aside extra time to exercise (which is a large percentage of Americans) , which one is more likely to meet these requirements?

This really isn’t debatable, is it?

There are other reason to argue pro-auto. Stick with those and don’t blind yourself that “your side” has to win every pro/con. This one is a clearly a losing one.
Actually, it is debatable. Again, I can only speak from personal experience. In Boston, for me to take mass transit to my workplace, I need to either take 1 bus (walk about 5 min from my house to the corner), transfer to the subway (walk about 1 min from bus to subway platform), transfer to the commuter rail (walk about 3 mins and climb stairs--or take the escalator like most people do), and then walk from the rail stop to work (walk about 5 mins). The trip takes 51 mins with 14 mins of exercise. Add in the return trip and it's a 102 min commute with 28 mins of exercise. 102/28 = 130 mins, 21% Exercise.

The alternative (in good weather) is to ride my bicycle to the commuter rail (about 15 mins of fast--and dangerous--city riding) and take the train in. From experience, the trip takes about 45 min if I make the train. That's 90/30. = 120 mins, 25% Exercise

I would like to bicycle directly, but the roads between home and work are dangerous enough wrapped in a car. It is simply too hazardous to ride.

Currently, though, I drive. It takes me an abysmal 25 min to go 10 freaking miles. I hate it. I much preferred my ride to the train station and reading a book on the way to work. However, dangerous drivers, icy roads, late trains, having to schedule my work and life around the sparse train schedule, and astronomical rail ticket prices have driven me to drive. In exchange, with the extra time I have, I exercise during my lunch hour. Thus, 50/60. = 110 mins, 54% Exercise.

In my case, using the car frees up so much additional time that I can engage in much more strenuous, targeted exercise than I can taking public transportation.

I agree that public transit can force a lazy person with lots of free time to exercise more than they otherwise would. For people on tight schedules who claim to not have enough time to exercise, driving can actually free up additional time for real fitness. Because, lets face it; unless you are running the subway stairs or doing jumping jacks on the platform like a moron, you're really not getting all that much of a workout from "brisk walks" between transit stops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2013, 05:19 PM
 
3,965 posts, read 4,611,724 times
Reputation: 3657
It's stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 05:37 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,717,097 times
Reputation: 2538
I remember there being a HUGE amount of buzz around the Segway prior to it's being announced. Lots of people hyperbolically speculating about how transformative the Segway would be - I think Steve Jobs said it would be would be as big a deal as the PC - other people commented on how it would change the way cities were built.

The problem with that speculation is it was all mired in a suburban view of the future - a vision that was already waning at the introduction of the Segway. That vision of growth by sprawl is no longer the predominant force - and denser urban cities are the most desired and coveted areas of be in. So the Segway was designed for a future that thankfully will not come to pass, and is instead hopelessly mired in a dead-end vision of cities that was already being rejected and will be completely killed in the 21st century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 873,662 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42 View Post
I would like to bicycle directly, but the roads between home and work are dangerous enough wrapped in a car. It is simply too hazardous to ride.

Currently, though, I drive. It takes me an abysmal 25 min to go 10 freaking miles. I hate it...
I understand.
I used to cycle 6miles+ each way through London traffic to get to work. In many ways it was exhilarating, if a bit dangerous.

I never had a serious accident, thank goodness. But I would probably not do it now.

I wonder if there are just one or two stretches of road that make this impossible, and if they were fixed, whether you could bicycle the whole way?

If so, you might consider lobbying for change with fellow cyclists
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 873,662 times
Reputation: 217
Segway: A Dream to fight a Nightmare?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I remember there being a HUGE amount of buzz around the Segway prior to it's being announced. Lots of people hyperbolically speculating about how transformative the Segway would be - I think Steve Jobs said it would be would be as big a deal as the PC - other people commented on how it would change the way cities were built.

The problem with that speculation is it was all mired in a suburban view of the future - a vision that was already waning at the introduction of the Segway. That vision of growth by sprawl is no longer the predominant force - and denser urban cities are the most desired and coveted areas of be in. So the Segway was designed for a future that thankfully will not come to pass, and is instead hopelessly mired in a dead-end vision of cities that was already being rejected and will be completely killed in the 21st century.
I have lived outside the US for most of the last three decades, and I see this thing (the Segway) as a classic stupid America blunder.

America needs to change its wasteful Suburban living environment (the most colossal mal-investment in history) rather than looking for new ways of accommodating a frightful mistake.

Last edited by Geologic; 02-22-2013 at 06:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Central CT, sometimes NH.
3,481 posts, read 5,149,433 times
Reputation: 3548
Getting back to my original topic, the Segway, one of Kamen's goals was to use technology to extend the range of what would be considered a reasonable walk. By increasing the speed traveled, in theory it tripled the distance one could cover in the same amount of time. Ideally this would reduce the need for a car. However, factors such as social interaction, enjoyment of the walk, as well as the cost of the product, evidently were not given enough consideration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,094,154 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I remember there being a HUGE amount of buzz around the Segway prior to it's being announced. Lots of people hyperbolically speculating about how transformative the Segway would be - I think Steve Jobs said it would be would be as big a deal as the PC - other people commented on how it would change the way cities were built.

The problem with that speculation is it was all mired in a suburban view of the future - a vision that was already waning at the introduction of the Segway. That vision of growth by sprawl is no longer the predominant force - and denser urban cities are the most desired and coveted areas of be in. So the Segway was designed for a future that thankfully will not come to pass, and is instead hopelessly mired in a dead-end vision of cities that was already being rejected and will be completely killed in the 21st century.
LOL @ Segway designed for a future of suburbs. I'm a bit of a scooter hound, and the 50 cc ones you can't even use in the 'burbs. I can just see the average Joe 'Burb commuting to work on his Segway... that'd only take over an hour each way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:52 PM
 
2,114 posts, read 4,187,927 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
The Segway and related products have the potential to make a car-free environment a reality for more people by bridging mass transit gaps between the home and one's final destination. Why didn't New Urbanists embrace this and similar technologies?
The price when first announced was only $2,000. The $5,000 price was an introductory pre-order special that was to benefit charity. The price never went down.

Most people can't justify paying that much money for a toy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 07:03 PM
 
735 posts, read 451,563 times
Reputation: 1716
Maybe people have not embraced the Segway because it looks like they are riding around on their testicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 07:10 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,373,205 times
Reputation: 22356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
The Segway and related products have the potential to make a car-free environment a reality for more people by bridging mass transit gaps between the home and one's final destination. Why didn't New Urbanists embrace this and similar technologies?
I realize that you can get a seat mod for it, but it's already over priced as far as I am concerned and I sure don't want to have to stand up everywhere I go.

Besides, my commute is 30+ miles, and in the dead of winter it's just not going to cut it.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top