Today’s Headlines

  • galvoguy

    Bumper badger would be illegal to use on the streets of nyc and most other cities, it covers the license plate. Opaque car covers are also illegal for this same reason. The VIN, license plates and identifying characteristics of vehicle cannot be blocked. This includes candy wrappers and gloves shoved in the drivers corner of the windshield.
    If the driver forgets to take the bumper off, and drives away i hope they get a big ticket for a moving violation.

  • See today’s NY Times opinion page.

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/opinion/29sullivan.html

    “We have lost our golden pedestrian touch in New York mostly because we still think about traffic as though it were 1950, and we needed Robert Moses to plow a few giant freeways through town to get the cars moving again. But the fact is that more roads equal more traffic.”

  • JK

    Read Sullivan’s piece. He nails it. Doctoroff and Bloomberg continually express concern with New York’s competitiveness versus London and other great cities. How long can they sit back and watch those other cities move into a new era of rolling back the domination of the automobile and reaping the social, economic, environmental and health benefits of doing so?

    Sullivan’s comments about the massive Atlantic Yards and their pedestrian and neighborhood unfriendliness are also trenchant. A great piece that probably had to be penned by a well connected magazine writer to get so many inches.

  • What I loved was how Sullivan didn’t say we were losing our edge just to London, Paris or simply other elite cities, but how cities like Atlanta, Indianapolis and Grand Rapids, Michigan – cities long given over the the automobile age – are catching up to us in innovative use of streetspace and pedestrian / bike improvements.

  • I whipped up a version of Sullivan’s piece including links to all of the Streetsblog items that the article references. I swear, it reads like a “Streetsblog Best of 2006.”

    http://www.streetsblog.org/the-city-that-never-walks-nyt-oped-by-robert-sullivan/

  • David Chesler

    There is a certain “Man bites Dog” to Forthcoming Climate Disaster Report May Sugarcoat the Truth.

    There ought to be a headline noting that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report will say:

    by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That’s far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month.

    The Science article is newsworthy, but it seems biased to me that the main thrust of reporting about this report is that some other experts disagree with it.

    If the truth is that we’re doomed to 55 inches of sea-level rise, then calling it 5 to 23 inches is sugar-coating, but if it really will be only 5 to 23 inches, then 20 to 55 inches is fear-mongering.

    Either way it’s an awful lot less than the 80 feet rise that Da quotes from Jim Hansen “The Threat to the Planet” in comment #108 to “Confronting Our Problems“.

    I looked at the 2004 Columbia reports that Aaron pointed to a few comments earlier in that thread. One report predicts increased number of summer heat-related deaths for various scenarios, but says nothing about winter cold-related deaths and costs. I’m still struck that there is a notion that since this is the best of all possible worlds, there is no possible good that could come from any climate change. I know that’s not the case, and no report that tallies only the bad without the good is going to convince me that the bad outweighs the good. (Patz at page 34 quotes Rosenzweig and Hillel 1993 showing great swaths of land yielding more or much more grain with increased CO2. Kinney at page 9 asks “Will health benefits of winter warming offset these summer impacts?” and answers on page 12 “only partially”. The presentations on the Columbia site were mostly slides, without the accompanying lectures and detail.)

    Going back to Dr. Cullen of The Weather Channel, it seems to me that there are still open questions, and they should be dealt with openly, not by pulling the certifications of those experts who don’t hold the most commonly accepted point of view.

    (This is the best I get at polite non-confrontational disagreement. Hope it’s good enough.)