<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Today&#8217;s Headlines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:55:42 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/comment-page-1/#comment-40283</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/#comment-40283</guid>
		<description>I agree that there are lots of problems with the Drago article, Doc.  Mixed-use neighborhoods don&#039;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&#039;re connected, but not automatic.  For example, most of the &quot;city&quot; of downtown Phoenix is just as car-dependent as anywhere else in the valley.

The real problem is car dependence, and as we&#039;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 &lt;i&gt;have&lt;/i&gt; to drive their kids to school in Manhattan.  Conversely, mixed-use &quot;streetcar suburbs&quot; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <i>have</i> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Barnett</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/comment-page-1/#comment-40279</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Barnett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/#comment-40279</guid>
		<description>As much as I want to believe the suburbs are insidiously patriarchal, &quot;Suburbs Not So Friendly...&quot; 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 &quot;Manhattan&quot;, 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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/comment-page-1/#comment-40271</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:18:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/#comment-40271</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://snipr.com/fcofthef&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; are some more pictures of the FC of the F, if anyone&#039;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 &quot;porridge&quot; technology can then be fed back to cyclists and pedestrians to fuel their commutes. &quot;Excess&quot; power can be used to commit acts of love or kindness both on and off the city&#039;s grid, even during hours of complete darkness when solar panels are idle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://snipr.com/fcofthef" rel="nofollow">Here</a> are some more pictures of the FC of the F, if anyone's interested. </p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/comment-page-1/#comment-40268</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/#comment-40268</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Jonathan!  I thought this paragraph was kind of weird:

&lt;blockquote&gt;While the vehicles are in the stack, waiting to be rented out, their lithium-ion batteries would be charging off the city&#039;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&#039; batteries were full, the excess power would flow into the city&#039;s grid.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Hey, why not just power the subways from these solar panels and skip the cars altogether?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Jonathan!  I thought this paragraph was kind of weird:</p>
<blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hey, why not just power the subways from these solar panels and skip the cars altogether?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/comment-page-1/#comment-40267</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:59:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/14/todays-headlines-283/#comment-40267</guid>
		<description>The &quot;folding car of the future&quot; is intriguing. Seems to hit right between Vélib&#039; 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 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/01/lew-fidlers-9-carat-stone-traffic-plan-arrives/#comment-39678&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one of his responses to Lew Fidler&lt;/a&gt;, 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&#039;t help this campaign.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The "folding car of the future" is intriguing. Seems to hit right between Vélib' and Zipcar and those luggage carts they have at airports. </p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/01/lew-fidlers-9-carat-stone-traffic-plan-arrives/#comment-39678" rel="nofollow">one of his responses to Lew Fidler</a>, 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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
