According to Pew research, cars are more of a necessity than TVs, cell phones, or pretty much any other major purchase.
Hmmm. I don’t own a TV either.
How will you know where to drive to for shopping if your TV doesn’t tell you? You could be missing out on some must-have consumer good.
I totally am. There is a lot of evidence that people that don’t have cars save a lot more of their income because they can’t impulse shop. If you have to think about how you are going to get the 6 pack and the laundry detergent home on your bike in the same trip, you don’t buy anything else in the store.
Air conditioning? An at-home clothes dryer?
The computer and cell phone make sense, and my monitor doubles as a 37″ TV, so I guess that one works for me also, but how can over half of Americans need AC?
Does that much of the US now live in AZ, NV, NM, FL, and TX?
Since electric or gas clothes dryers use energy, households that use them (66 percent say they are necessary) should have a five percent tax added to their utility bills. The fumds could then be used to establish a five percent energy tax credit on utility bills for households that drip dry their clothes and use less energy. Of course that would be social engineering, just like bicyclists expect motorist to pay their bills.
…should have a five percent tax added to their utility bills.
Should we also add a 5% tax on all dryer usage?
A German town geared for bikes:
how can over half of Americans need AC?
I can see how a lot of people would regard it as a seasonal necessity in large parts of the country. Our summers aren’t that bad here, and most of the people I know get by fine without it. But hot, humid summers on the East coast, or in the South?
“Clothes dryer” is just weird, through. A convenience, certainly. But a “necessity?” Have clothes lines become THAT antiquated?
should have a five percent tax added to their utility bills
Well, I think they do pay to use them through higher electric bills.
bicyclists expect motorist to pay their bills
I’m not sure that’s true. Yes, they do get 1% of Oregon gas tax revenue, but that’s not that much. At the very most (and I’m not sure how many have actually asked for it), they expect society to provide them infrastructure, possibly since they are fighting obesity (which is a chronic health issue) and since they don’t pollute (and its not like motorists are taxed for creating pollution). Also, a person who solely bikes in regular travel lanes (such as on low-traffic streets) doesn’t add anything to infrastructure bills.
But, does your car need to be:
2) Within the confines of your actual house?
3) Within a short walk to someplace nearby?
4) Powered by gasoline?
5) Able to go more than 40 miles in a single trip?
6) Able to go more than 100 miles in a single trip?
These are more important questions to inform urban design decisions, IMHO….
Terry: Homes that use more electricity already pay more:
PGE: First 250 kwh of usage billed at 5.124 cents/KWH, >250 billed at 6.899 cents/KWH.
Pacific Power: First 400 kwh of usage billed at 3.521 cents/KWH, 401-1000 khw billed at 4.173 cents/KWH, >1000 kwh billed at 5.149 cents/KWH.
Matthew wrote: There is a lot of evidence that people that don’t have cars save a lot more of their income because they can’t impulse shop.
Any trip to a indoor enclosed shopping mall where one must walk extended distances to carry their purchases to an outsized parking lot should prove that theory wrong.
Meanwhile, in my new walkable neighborhood outside of the City of Portland, I’m quite capable of walking a very short distance to make impulse purchases (like dinner tonight) that wouldn’t have been possible in my former City of Portland auto-oriented neighborhood that lacked even basic sidewalks and required a running sprint to get to/from the outbound bus stop.
wouldn’t have been possible in my former City of Portland auto-oriented neighborhood
Well, maybe if you weren’t off a state highway and, moreover since I know Powell and 82nd aren’t that bad, in a hilly area right next to a major freeway interchange…
Try Southwest Portland. For instance Hillsdate has the cute shops you can walk to, 99% drive to Fred Meyer to do their real shopping. That’s why Burlingame is Fred Meyer’s busiest store by sq. ft. Walking to the store is nearly impossible.
Did ya’ll see this at the NY Times?
I’m a big fan of the New Old Lompoc, and our food carts. It was fun to read for me.
Jason McHuff Says: Well, maybe if you weren’t off a state highway and, moreover since I know Powell and 82nd aren’t that bad, in a hilly area right next to a major freeway interchange…
Portland is full of walkable neighborhoods — Alberta, Mississippi, Belmont, Hawthorne, Woodstock, Hollywood, Lloyd District — and this becomes more true every year. There are certainly walkable neighborhoods in some suburbs, but it’s the exception rather than the rule.
Jason McHuff wrote: Well, maybe if you weren’t off a state highway and, moreover since I know Powell and 82nd aren’t that bad, in a hilly area right next to a major freeway interchange…
So you’re telling me that I shouldn’t live next to a state highway (Barbur Boulevard), but then the intersection of TWO state highways (S.E. Powell Bouelvard and 82nd Avenues) isn’t that bad — what exactly is your argument? That living next to a state highway COULD be good or COULD be bad?
How’s McLoughlin Boulevard in downtown Milwaukie? ODOT seemed to have made a lot of investments in streetscaping (sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, traffic signals) there. What about Killingsworth? Sandy was until just a few years ago a state highway; so were Interstate and M.L.K. and Beaverton-Hillsdale (through Hillsdale).
then the intersection of TWO state highway
I was talking about them as two separate ones. And neither of them are great (a state highway generally means a lot of traffic, especially thru), and I know the actual intersection has had newspaper articles written about its issues. But that’s why I said “moreover” and “that bad”–to make it clear that it was the lowest-level argument and that I was talking in relative terms.
living next to a state highway COULD be good or COULD be bad
I meant that it could be so-so (there’s probably going to be a lot of traffic but maybe the pedestrian facilities are decent) or it could be bad (no sidewalks and poor crosswalks)
ODOT seemed to have made a lot of investments in streetscaping
And how much of that is because of funding and/or lobbying from the city of Milwaukie?
What about Killingsworth?
What about it? I don’t believe it is or has been a state facility.
was until just a few years ago a state highway
And now that they’re under city control, they’re getting better. And that’s partly because ODOT’s standards are more restrictive, designed for thru traffic and not the surrounding community.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *