Today’s Headlines

  • This Just In: City Motorists Driving While Distracted (City Room, Post, News)
  • Dangerous Bus Drivers Kept Behind the Wheel (Voice
  • Weiner’s Pricing Alternative Is No Alternative (TSTC)
  • A National Gas Tax: As Patriotic as It Is Unpopular (NYT)
  • Oil Billionaire Buys His Own Airbus A380 (NYT)
  • Americans Are Ignorant on Climate Change (On the Ground)
  • Red Hook "De-Gentrification" Pinned on Lack of Transit (Across the Park
  • Streetcar’s Return Heralded in New Orleans (USA Today
  • Strike Hobbles Paris Transit System; Many Take to Bikes (NYT)
  • Is Michael Bloomberg America’s Ken Livingstone? (Planetizen)
  • Suburbs Not So Friendly After All, Especially to Women (HuffPo)
  • Behold the Foldable, Stackable ‘City Car’ (Network World)
  • Jonathan

    The “folding car of the future” is intriguing. Seems to hit right between Vélib’ and Zipcar and those luggage carts they have at airports.

    Of course, it would hurt a lot more to be run down by the FC of the F than by an out-of-control smartcart. I think Angus put it best in one of his responses to Lew Fidler, cars are dangerous because they are heavy and go fast, and the fact that we allow our streets to be used as testing grounds for guided automotive missiles is why we are not getting the full benefit out of our streets that we might. The FC of the F doesn’t help this campaign.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    Thanks, Jonathan! I thought this paragraph was kind of weird:

    While the vehicles are in the stack, waiting to be rented out, their lithium-ion batteries would be charging off the city’s power grid. But the project is designed to give power back to the city, too. Solar panels erected on nearby buildings would feed energy into the charging stations and when the cars’ batteries were full, the excess power would flow into the city’s grid.

    Hey, why not just power the subways from these solar panels and skip the cars altogether?

  • Jonathan

    Here are some more pictures of the FC of the F, if anyone’s interested.

    Angus, to advance your reasoning one step further, why not just use existing technology to convert the solar rays into oatmeal and apples? Revolutionary “porridge” technology can then be fed back to cyclists and pedestrians to fuel their commutes. “Excess” power can be used to commit acts of love or kindness both on and off the city’s grid, even during hours of complete darkness when solar panels are idle.

  • As much as I want to believe the suburbs are insidiously patriarchal, “Suburbs Not So Friendly…” had me rolling my eyes. After making its weak case, it ends with the idea that Manhattan is a solution–but only for the rich. Hogwash! Not just “Manhattan”, but most neighborhoods of NYC and other real cites are a solution to driving for anyone that will compromise on space. Rich or poor, you get less here. It goes hand in hand with being closer to things, you see?

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    I agree that there are lots of problems with the Drago article, Doc. Mixed-use neighborhoods don’t have to be gentrified to be convenient. You can be car-free just as easily in the South Bronx as in the Upper East Side.

    The main problem is that Drago conflates suburban, single-use and car-dependent. They’re connected, but not automatic. For example, most of the “city” of downtown Phoenix is just as car-dependent as anywhere else in the valley.

    The real problem is car dependence, and as we’ve seen in the congestion pricing debates, many gentrified city dwellers are just as car-dependent as McMansion owners in La Jolla. Think of the Riverdale parents who have to drive their kids to school in Manhattan. Conversely, mixed-use “streetcar suburbs” like Bronxville, Great Neck and Montclair can easily support a car-free lifestyle.

    Drago and his family could have that lifestyle in State College tomorrow if someone opened a supermarket that was walking distance from the relatively high-density housing near campus.