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.
Going back to the original toic, a Tesla sounds neat… I'd like one too if I had a $100,000 on hand and a pressing need to get rid of it. Range is a bit iffy but it sounds like it should to do what I need… can handle 250 miles in one go to get to upstate NY or up in NH. Charging might be an issue away from home. Not really an electric bicycle or Segway replacement considering the price difference.
As for why new urbanist might be more interested in bicycles over electric cars? They're still cars, with all the space requirements of a car. And as you said,
Environmentally, they're great, though not that practical until costs go down. Maybe a car like the Tesla could become normal 30 years from now?
Not really different than a Segway, though. It's difficult to have a vibrant street scene when everyone gets everywhere by Segway. Segways and pedestrians have the same issue as bicycles and pedestrians. They don't mix. On a busy sidewalk, a Segway is a no go.
And the Tesla isn't really that expensive. Room for 5+2 (Model S) 300 mile range (claimed) for about $75,000. Segway, 24 mile range (claimed) costs about $7,500. They're both absurdly expensive for most people. You can buy a perfectly good used car for $7500 or a brand-new bicycle (a good one, not something from Wally's World) for $400-500. Unless it's obnoxiously hot, which it does get here, you can ride a bicycle at 12 mph without breaking a sweat.
Lower SES participants had a higher overweight prevalence
than higher SES participants. Similarly, the most
deprived areas (ie, lower income, less housing tenure, less
car ownership) had twice the proportion of obese residents
as compared with the more-affluent areas
Quote:
Children’s weights and
heights were directly assessed, but the built environment
was estimated using a census index of material deprivation
(ie, unemployment, overcrowding, owner occupation,
and car ownership). Results demonstrated that children
who lived in more deprived areas had rates of obesity 2.5
times more than the national rate of obesity in the United
Kingdom, showing a linear association between obesity
and neighborhood material deprivation.
A recent RAND study examined whether access to supermarkets will help prevent obesity. Research has shown that frequently eating foods not prepared at home, especially fast food, is linked to weight gain. A 2009 study of people living in Los Angeles explored whether car ownership moderates the effect of living in an area with a high concentration of restaurants or fast-food outlets (Inagami et al., 2009). The researchers hypothesized that car ownership should enable people who live in neighborhoods with many restaurants or fast-food outlets but few supermarkets to leave the neighborhood and go to supermarkets to purchase the ingredients to make healthy meals at home, whereas those without cars would be relegated to eating locally available fast food. As expected, people living among high concentrations of fast-food outlets had higher BMIs than people living in areas with no fast-food outlets. Among people living in areas with many outlets, car ownership was indeed associated with a lower BMI.
Only if people are so stupid they randomly throw maps at Ohio and then go live in a cornfield before realizing they can't really walk anywhere because the're nothing but corn for 20 square miles. And I thought I had a dim outlook on the intelligence of humanity. Maybe anti-car people are just outstandingly less intelligent than the average American and really are that stupid. It's not a point I'd make, but seems to be what you are saying. Colombus certainly has a plenty of walkable neighborhoods.
How does carefully choosing where one lives increase the number of choices available? The number of neighborhoods where someone can comfortably live car-free today, is still dramatically less than the number of neighborhoods where someone could have lived car-free 50-60 years ago.
This is probably my last post on this off-topic subject.
When reading this forum, I often get the feeling that some people view cars as some sort of 'evil', and I always have a hard time understanding why.
To parade one's virtue one needs an evil for the virtue to oppose. And oh, how Americans love parading their virtue. Many so called "New Urbanists" should be called the New Puritans, as priggish and self righteous as they are. No doubt many admire the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a fine example of social planning.
Motorized personal transport like scooters and power wheelchairs are good for disabled people and if your local buses are handcap accessible with ramps, they can come on the bus. Segways seem primarilly to be marketed at the able bodied, and the able bodied generally seem to choose cheaper, faster alternatives like bikes. I don't think it would be right for an able bodied person to use up a spot reserved for the handicapped with a segway.
Yep, Segways have got to be the single most useless product, ever invented. If they catch on with the general population, I don't even want to think about what people will look like in the future.
Maybe the Year 2525, will come way sooner then expected.
But this isn't a random study where all things were equal. Instead, it had a specific purpose and intentially factored into the study the variable of areas with highly available fast food options. In other words, the research didnt' set out to prove the answer you're trying to attribute to it.
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.
Last edited by capitalcityguy; 02-22-2013 at 01:41 PM..
How does carefully choosing where one lives increase the number of choices available? The number of neighborhoods where someone can comfortably live car-free today, is still dramatically less than the number of neighborhoods where someone could have lived car-free 50-60 years ago.
This is probably my last post on this off-topic subject.
It doesn't. Take Sacramento, most of the old neighborhoods are just as walkable as they used to be. What has changed is that more people in those neighborhoods (East Sacramento, Land Park, Curtis Park, Oak Park) choose to own cars. They never were all that walkable, really. They were all streetcar suburbs. Overwhelming residential and non-self contained, people relied on the now bankrupt streetcar companies for transportation. Buses have replaced the failed streetcar companies, but often have less comprehensive service. That happened well before the '60s, however. Between that and cars becoming much more affordable, most people aren't comfortable living in those neighborhoods without a car anymore. Even in Midtown, Sacramento's most walkable neighborhood, most people still own cars.
Take NYC's growing car ownership rate. The Bronx is the biggest driver of that change. It's as walkable as always, but as it gentrifies and people have more money, more "choose to be car-dependent" (eg, they choose to have the audacity to have a car). It's not so much that NYC is any less walkable than it was in the '60s, it's just more New Yorkers aren't comfortable living without a car.
Take NYC's growing car ownership rate. The Bronx is the biggest driver of that change. It's as walkable as always, but as it gentrifies and people have more money, more "choose to be car-dependent" (eg, they choose to have the audacity to have a car). It's not so much that NYC is any less walkable than it was in the '60s, it's just more New Yorkers aren't comfortable living without a car.
But that's not car-dependent, that's owning a car. I'm not car-dependent; I used to live in the same place as I do now without a car and was able to do most of the local trips I do now with somewhat less convenience. Almost all Bronx residents could manage getting around without a car, unless they commute to some suburbs or have a job similar to yours that requires a car.
But this isn't a random study where all things were equal. Instead, it had a specific purpose and intentially factored into the study the variable of areas with highly available fast food options. In other words, the research didnt' set out to prove the answer you're trying to attribute to it.
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.
Exactly the same. Walking from the Wally's World parking lot is about the same distance as I walked to catch the bus in Seattle or Prague. Actually, it's farther. Walking to the corner store from my Seattle apartments was less than a block, less than I'd walk in the supermarket to get form aisle to aisle.
A lot also depends on whether a person drives or takes public transportation. The Department of Transportation found that, in 2009, commutes by private car took, on average, 23 minutes. Public transportation, by contrast, took an average of 53 minutes. You could read that as an argument that more people should drive so that their commutes are shorter or as an argument that we need to bolster public transportation.
Don't forget, it's easier to set aside that time if you drive. Whether someone sets aside the 30 minutes a day they save by driving to exercise (hopefully more something more vigorous than a 5 minute walk to and from the bus stop) or spends it chowing Cheetos in front of the TV is up to them. Since obesity is strongly correlated with lower SES, seems that the decision depends on where in society someone lands. In developed countries, those of higher SES have adapted better to the sedentary nature of our jobs and the SAD (Standard American Diet). They eat better and exercise more. Some drive and some take public transport, especially in large metropolitan areas. http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archi...8/gearhart.pdf
http://health-equity.pitt.edu/910/1/06pm.pdf
Or there we go, 8.3 more minutes of walking. It's something, about 1/3 of the 100 kcal they are talking about to reduce obesity. So you spend an extra 30 minutes to get an extra 8.3 minutes of walking, which unless it's on a hill isn't going to get my heart rate up high enough to count as exercise anyway. As I've said, many times, it's better than nothing, but not nearly enough. I spend more than 8 minutes a day walking my dogs. http://petnet.com.au/sites/default/f..._ownership.pdf
"Previous research found that young girls who own a
dog spend 29 minutes more per day in physical activity
compared to those without a dog."
Dog ownership: more effective in preventing obesity than public transportation.
But that's not car-dependent, that's owning a car. I'm not car-dependent; I used to live in the same place as I do now without a car and was able to do most of the local trips I do now with somewhat less convenience. Almost all Bronx residents could manage getting around without a car, unless they commute to some suburbs or have a job similar to yours that requires a car.
Hence the problem with "not being comfortable living car-free" = "car-dependence." Almost no one in East Sacramento or Land Park (both quite affluent areas) is comfortable living car-free despite them being pretty (quite, by Sacramento standards) walkable neighborhoods with easy access to transportation.
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.
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.
The number of neighborhoods where someone can comfortably live car-free today, is still dramatically less than the number of neighborhoods where someone could have lived car-free 50-60 years ago.
