So, because it's not a universal panacea for negative environmental effects, we should abandon it altogether?

. . . that's kind of stupid.

Assuming that mining safety improves, that more of our electrical energy is derived from green sources, and that batteries improve in long term durability as well as the ability to handle a charge, then you're still decreasing the problems associated with suburban living. And, incidentally, suburban living isn't going away. What is the author suggesting, killing everyone that lives outside of an urban hub?

It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Lumpmoose: It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Portland?

SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Portland?

[i212.photobucket.com image 363x310]

Haha...ha?

Lumpmoose: SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Portland?

[i212.photobucket.com image 363x310]

Haha...ha?

Let me laugh even harder!!!!!!

You don't live here, do you?

Lsherm: SphericalTime: What is the author suggesting, killing everyone that lives outside of an urban hub?

The truly delusional environmentalists believe everyone is going to move back into a city one day and start biking to work. That's bullshiat. If anything, we're going to get more spread out once teleworking gets under way full-force. My company is moving 30% of the workforce to "work from home" this year alone. We're getting applications for our DC office from people who live in West Virginia. Why? Because they don't have to come into the office more than once a month.

doesn't that serve basically the same end though? it doesn't matter as much that you still have a car-centric system if the need to commute is severely diminished.

SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Portland?

[i212.photobucket.com image 363x310]

Haha...ha?

Let me laugh even harder!!!!!!

You don't live here, do you?

I'm going based on my father, who has lived there and has praised Portland's urban planning techniques and based on sources online.

Lumpmoose: SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Portland?

[i212.photobucket.com image 363x310]

Haha...ha?

Let me laugh even harder!!!!!!

You don't live here, do you?

I'm going based on my father, who has lived there and has praised Portland's urban planning techniques and based on sources online.

Alright. I see. I guess I should explain. You are right. Portland has those goals, but mostly for the downtown core and older areas around it (Pearl District for the Haves, Eastside for the Have Nots). Outside of that area (and still inside the growth boundary) it's a really mixed bag especially when you get out to the suburbs like Gresham, Tigard, and most of Clackamas county. That growth boundary is huge. And don't get me started on Vancouver, USA, just across the river. What urban growth boundary?

We have light rail. We have a lot of bike lanes. We have people who want to change things. However, we have sprawl, strip malls, and housing developments like anywhere else. We aren't Utopia.

Lsherm: thomps: Lsherm: SphericalTime: What is the author suggesting, killing everyone that lives outside of an urban hub?

The truly delusional environmentalists believe everyone is going to move back into a city one day and start biking to work. That's bullshiat. If anything, we're going to get more spread out once teleworking gets under way full-force. My company is moving 30% of the workforce to "work from home" this year alone. We're getting applications for our DC office from people who live in West Virginia. Why? Because they don't have to come into the office more than once a month.

doesn't that serve basically the same end though? it doesn't matter as much that you still have a car-centric system if the need to commute is severely diminished.

It does, but in vastly different ways. I could see quite a few earth-munchers getting upset that people aren't riding bicycles everywhere just because we've figured out how to minimize our driving distance.

Not everyone wants to live in a city their entire life. I did when I was younger, but I'm glad I don't now.

yeah, i live in a city now and don't own a car. i walk to work, take public transportation when possible, and use a zipcar or cab when not. it's fine for now, but i don't want to do it forever.

Lsherm: SphericalTime: What is the author suggesting, killing everyone that lives outside of an urban hub?

The truly delusional environmentalists believe everyone is going to move back into a city one day and start biking to work. That's bullshiat. If anything, we're going to get more spread out once teleworking gets under way full-force. My company is moving 30% of the workforce to "work from home" this year alone. We're getting applications for our DC office from people who live in West Virginia. Why? Because they don't have to come into the office more than once a month.

No, but the suburbs have got to go. Already there's some interesting work in New Urbanism, and it makes sense.

SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: SnarfVader: Lumpmoose: It isn't acceptable for doctors to promote menthol cigarettes. Should environmentally minded people promote alternatively fueled automobiles? Some community groups are saying "No." They're showing how concerned citizens are better achieving their environmental objectives by supporting more durable options such as walkable neighborhoods, bicycling infrastructure, carpooling, traffic calming (incorporating physical features to slow or reduce traffic - wider sidewalks, roundabouts, etc.), and comfortable public transit.

Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Portland?

[i212.photobucket.com image 363x310]

Haha...ha?

Let me laugh even harder!!!!!!

You don't live here, do you?

I'm going based on my father, who has lived there and has praised Portland's urban planning techniques and based on sources online.

Alright. I see. I guess I should explain. You are right. Portland has those goals, but mostly for the downtown core and older areas around it (Pearl District for the Haves, Eastside for the Have Nots). Outside of that area (and still inside the growth boundary) it's a really mixed bag especially when you get out to the suburbs like Gresham, Tigard, and most of Clackamas county. That growth boundary is huge. And don't get me started on Vancouver, USA, just across the river. What urban growth boundary?

We have light rail. We have a lot of bike lanes. We have people who want to change things. However, we have sprawl, strip malls, and housing developments like anywhere else. We aren't Utopia.

With these stats, you're way ahead of the curve:

"The Urban Growth Boundary worked. Metro Portland's population (1.58 million) has grown by 50 per cent since 1973, its land area has only grown by 2 per cent. Portland occupies about one-third the area and its population density is double that of Metro Vancouver [BC]. Infilling rather than sprawl has been the rule.... And now a statistic unmatched anywhere in North America: from 1996 to 2006 transit ridership increased 46 per cent while automobile miles driven per capita dropped eight per cent! Another spin-off -- with huge health-care savings -- is that air quality consistently improved from 1990 to 1999 with bad air days decreasing from 11 to only two per year."

If land area has only grown by 2% since 1973, it stands to reason that there's still infilling to do in the outer Portland suburbs. As for Vancouver, WA, it's Oregon state law that established the UGB. Washington can spread out on the north river bank as much as they want. I don't doubt Portland isn't perfect but most of the country has horrible sprawl issues.

So, going where you want when you want is an unsustainable societal norm? Fire up the suicide booth, boys, and prepare to feast on some delicious Soylent Green.

So, here's where I have a problem with the "Let's get rid of all the cars" crowd:

I live just ouside of Portland. It's a nice place to live. But, on occasion, I'd like to get away from the city. Maybe go to the beach, which isn't far away. Or perhaps I'd like to go and hike the Columbia River Gorge. Maybe visit Mt Hood or Mt St Helens. However, if I don't have a vehicle of some sort, I can't. There is no bus service up to the mountains. If memory serves, I might be able to catch a bus to the beach, but I'll have to spend the night. Forget about transportation to any of the more secluded areas of the Oregon coast or any of the Washington coast. Unless I'm going to a casino, I'm not going to catch a shuttle out of town. Sure, I could cycle, but that would take far more time than I have in a weekend. Forget about visiting Steens are somewhere further remote at all. I'd need weeks to get there and back by bicycle. How long would I have a job if I constantly took time off?

The car isn't going away. Let's concentrate on making it greener (god I hate to use that term but I think it applies here). Good urban planning has its place, but people need to get out of town once in awhile.

JohnAnnArbor: CygnusDarius: Lsherm: SphericalTime: What is the author suggesting, killing everyone that lives outside of an urban hub?

The truly delusional environmentalists believe everyone is going to move back into a city one day and start biking to work. That's bullshiat. If anything, we're going to get more spread out once teleworking gets under way full-force. My company is moving 30% of the workforce to "work from home" this year alone. We're getting applications for our DC office from people who live in West Virginia. Why? Because they don't have to come into the office more than once a month.

No, but the suburbs have got to go. Already there's some interesting work in New Urbanism, and it makes sense.

If you design a place and people like it and live there, great.

If you're thinking of forcing it....

I don't think of forcing it, but unless we use massive water recycling systems, roads especifiaclly for Emergency response systems, alternate energy for food and merchandise distribution, and the increase of local production of X product(s), urban sprawls will continue to be a dent in the use of gas/diesel in cars and electricity, will continue to affect the economy, and will cause more and more delays in emergency response.

And I'm not the only one pointing this out:

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Why do I get the feeling that if we shut down the suburbs, moved everybody into a new urbanist community, banned cars for most people, and everybody rode bikes, the greenies would still biatch about how we're doing everything wrong?

They're just whitewashing their enjoyment of telling people what to do, how to live, and a general love of complaining by putting it into an environmental package. There's no difference between them and the nosy little old lady down the street except the smell of patchouli.

/You know who else wanted to round people up to live in higher density communities where you could walk everywhere?

This text is now purple: Lumpmoose: Can't say I disagree with this. From what I've heard, Portland has combated sprawl through strict building regulations. The key is to have pockets of communities with residences close to local shopping close to local businesses with plenty of accessible walking and biking paths in between. No huge housing developments, monolithic strip malls or acres of asphalt. It's all about smart urban planning backed by strong-willed and passionate political leaders.

Being wedged between a state line and two volcanoes is how Portland has combated sprawl. It literally has no buildable place towards which to grow.

And frankly, it *does* sprawl towards Beaverton, which is the only adjacent plain.

LOLWUT?

akula: Why do I get the feeling that if we shut down the suburbs, moved everybody into a new urbanist community, banned cars for most people, and everybody rode bikes, the greenies would still biatch about how we're doing everything wrong?

Because they know jack shiat about urbanism and architecture.

Urbanists and Architects, on the other hand...

Lumpmoose: -snip-

You presented your case very well and have a better understanding of this area than some of the natives I know. I stand by that we aren't perfect and our politics leave much to be desired, but I guess from an outside perspective we aren't doing bad at all. Thanks.

The article hinted at, but didn't spend a lot of time on, the old saw that electric cars generate as much pollution as gas cars, they just do it at the electricity generating station. I see that on Fark a lot.

Even if that's the case...which it doesn't have to be...there is a big difference between nonpoint pollution in a dense area people want to be in (what you get with gas cars), and point pollution at a spot (or spots) planners choose (power stations fueling electric cars). Planners can put power stations at the edge of the city, spread them out and put them places that help the pollution disperse easier.

tortilla burger: If I recall correctly, nearly all the world's supply of the metals used in hybrid/electric battery production is located in China. Buying gasoline = supporting terrorists. Buying hybrid = supporting Communism. I guess you really can't win here.

That's only true because China is willing to sell those metals to us, not that because they own the world's only deposits. Considering that rare-earth metals can be reused, and mining them is pretty toxic at the moment, the US is perfectly happy to let China shiat all over themselves while selling us rare-earth metals on the cheap.

Not everyone wants to live in the f*cking city you asshole.

This article was written about e-vehicles from about 5 years ago and ignores all scientific progress since then.

Its pathetic.

If you claim to be a journalist please do a little F'ng research before putting up your article. Otherwise it is just some shiatty opinion blog.

and buddy your blog sucks.