I give the city of Davis some credit in looking into ways that the city can reduce its carbon footprint. But I do not believe the city has gone far enough. And in many ways, the measures that it has taken on other issues, will counteract efforts to reduce our carbon footprint.
Here are three ideas that I have come up with.
First, require solar panels on all new homes. Last weekend I visited my parents in San Luis Obispo. Sitting outside in the backyard with their neighbor, I spied their solar panels. He informed me that they have paid all of $35 in electrical bills in the year since they installed the panel. Now solar panels are extremely expensive to install, costing what it would cost to buy a decent new car somewhere between 15 and 20 thousand dollars. However, the belief is that it would pay for itself within ten years. More importantly, it would take a tremendous amount off of the power grid in the city if this were done on a mass basis.
It is probably not realistic yet to require retrofitting of the devices, but when you buy a new house it makes sense. First, what is an extra 15 to 20 thousand on top of $400,000 to $600,000 you would pay for a new house. And second, if you plan to own the home for any length of time, you will make up the money in electrical bills. And there is always the expansion of technology discounts, the more that one buys of this technology, the cheaper it gets.
Unfortunately, the council in April got caught up in the debate on a new project as to whether or not to require such things and many on the council majority argued against it. That makes no sense, this is such an energy saver–utilizing the sun, especially in a place like Davis where perhaps 90% of the days are sunny.
Second, expand the greenbelts and bike routes to accommodate Gem cars as well. Our current infrastructure is not set up to accommodate energy saving electric cars rather than fossil fuel burning conventional cars. If we are serious about conserving, there is no reason that in-town trips should be done with conventional cars–none. But as a friend pointed out, here the city is supposed to be environmentally conscious, councilmembers even drive gem cars, but will not be able to get to the new Target store in them. How much sense does that make? Imagine being able to drive in your gem car downtown without having to use many of the major roads? Expensive, but how much gas consumption would we be able to reduce just by reducing greatly the number of in-town trips.
Third, the Whole Earth Festival taught me a very valuable lesson. Every day, we buy a huge amount of packaging including disposable food containers. At Whole Earth, plates and cups were charged a deposit that was returned to the customer up the return of their plates and cups. The plates and cups were then recycled or composted. That leads to the question–why not do that in town? Why not do that at Farmer’s Market? Why not greatly reduce the amount of packaging and disposable food containers that we use and instead either return for re-use, recycle, or compost? It would cost us nothing but an initiative to implement that practice city-wide and it would greatly, greatly reduce waste.
If we are serious about global warming and protecting the environment, then we need to get serious about finding new ways to conserve. Innovation and other saving policies need to increase. So far the council majority has talked the talk when it is convenient, let us see them walk the walk and actually propose policies that impact us all.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Yes… Considering alternatives to the prevailing political mind-set and seriously doing the big picture economic analysis are key to prudent plans for our future. The Davis Connection mailer we received recently outlined the Public Work’s narrative of their Surface Water Project vision. Their story was most telling in the narrowness of its vision and what it DIDN’T INCLUDE to fully inform Davis citizens.
Yes… Considering alternatives to the prevailing political mind-set and seriously doing the big picture economic analysis are key to prudent plans for our future. The Davis Connection mailer we received recently outlined the Public Work’s narrative of their Surface Water Project vision. Their story was most telling in the narrowness of its vision and what it DIDN’T INCLUDE to fully inform Davis citizens.
Yes… Considering alternatives to the prevailing political mind-set and seriously doing the big picture economic analysis are key to prudent plans for our future. The Davis Connection mailer we received recently outlined the Public Work’s narrative of their Surface Water Project vision. Their story was most telling in the narrowness of its vision and what it DIDN’T INCLUDE to fully inform Davis citizens.
Yes… Considering alternatives to the prevailing political mind-set and seriously doing the big picture economic analysis are key to prudent plans for our future. The Davis Connection mailer we received recently outlined the Public Work’s narrative of their Surface Water Project vision. Their story was most telling in the narrowness of its vision and what it DIDN’T INCLUDE to fully inform Davis citizens.
Just a rant- Most important thing we can do is to get “environmentalists” to start thinking globally… When environmental regulations force a U.S. manufacturer or power plant that was 95% clean to close because they couldn’t make it to 99% the pollution (and jobs) just gets exported to China or Mexico where they are 5% clean. Yes, you cleaned up your backyard, but you just contributed to ruining our planet. We need to try to encourage industry to stay and be as good as practical, rather than let the work, and the pollution slip across a border.
Just a rant- Most important thing we can do is to get “environmentalists” to start thinking globally… When environmental regulations force a U.S. manufacturer or power plant that was 95% clean to close because they couldn’t make it to 99% the pollution (and jobs) just gets exported to China or Mexico where they are 5% clean. Yes, you cleaned up your backyard, but you just contributed to ruining our planet. We need to try to encourage industry to stay and be as good as practical, rather than let the work, and the pollution slip across a border.
Just a rant- Most important thing we can do is to get “environmentalists” to start thinking globally… When environmental regulations force a U.S. manufacturer or power plant that was 95% clean to close because they couldn’t make it to 99% the pollution (and jobs) just gets exported to China or Mexico where they are 5% clean. Yes, you cleaned up your backyard, but you just contributed to ruining our planet. We need to try to encourage industry to stay and be as good as practical, rather than let the work, and the pollution slip across a border.
Just a rant- Most important thing we can do is to get “environmentalists” to start thinking globally… When environmental regulations force a U.S. manufacturer or power plant that was 95% clean to close because they couldn’t make it to 99% the pollution (and jobs) just gets exported to China or Mexico where they are 5% clean. Yes, you cleaned up your backyard, but you just contributed to ruining our planet. We need to try to encourage industry to stay and be as good as practical, rather than let the work, and the pollution slip across a border.
In general agreement here.
I think a 1.0 KW system should be mandatory (around $10k) and a 2.5KW system required to be optional. Of course, that also means requiring new dwellings to have the correct roof orientation to do it. Not sure if multi-family units should be required since they may not have the roof dimensions to accommodate so many panels. It’s complicated but I agree in principle. The counterargument is that we’re making already very expensive homes even more expensive. Many people have to stretch way beyond their means to afford an entry-level house here, myself included. While PV systems do pay for themselves, mortgage lenders don’t consider it, so it could push people outside what they will qualify for a loan.
In agreement regarding the GEM cars, better known as Low Speed Vehicles or Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (LSV/NEV), what is needed is a citywide NEV transportation plan, similar to what Lincoln has completed and Rocklin is working on. I don’t, however, think the greenbelt needs to altered in any way to accommodate the GEM cars, though I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it, if done well.
In general agreement here.
I think a 1.0 KW system should be mandatory (around $10k) and a 2.5KW system required to be optional. Of course, that also means requiring new dwellings to have the correct roof orientation to do it. Not sure if multi-family units should be required since they may not have the roof dimensions to accommodate so many panels. It’s complicated but I agree in principle. The counterargument is that we’re making already very expensive homes even more expensive. Many people have to stretch way beyond their means to afford an entry-level house here, myself included. While PV systems do pay for themselves, mortgage lenders don’t consider it, so it could push people outside what they will qualify for a loan.
In agreement regarding the GEM cars, better known as Low Speed Vehicles or Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (LSV/NEV), what is needed is a citywide NEV transportation plan, similar to what Lincoln has completed and Rocklin is working on. I don’t, however, think the greenbelt needs to altered in any way to accommodate the GEM cars, though I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it, if done well.
In general agreement here.
I think a 1.0 KW system should be mandatory (around $10k) and a 2.5KW system required to be optional. Of course, that also means requiring new dwellings to have the correct roof orientation to do it. Not sure if multi-family units should be required since they may not have the roof dimensions to accommodate so many panels. It’s complicated but I agree in principle. The counterargument is that we’re making already very expensive homes even more expensive. Many people have to stretch way beyond their means to afford an entry-level house here, myself included. While PV systems do pay for themselves, mortgage lenders don’t consider it, so it could push people outside what they will qualify for a loan.
In agreement regarding the GEM cars, better known as Low Speed Vehicles or Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (LSV/NEV), what is needed is a citywide NEV transportation plan, similar to what Lincoln has completed and Rocklin is working on. I don’t, however, think the greenbelt needs to altered in any way to accommodate the GEM cars, though I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it, if done well.
In general agreement here.
I think a 1.0 KW system should be mandatory (around $10k) and a 2.5KW system required to be optional. Of course, that also means requiring new dwellings to have the correct roof orientation to do it. Not sure if multi-family units should be required since they may not have the roof dimensions to accommodate so many panels. It’s complicated but I agree in principle. The counterargument is that we’re making already very expensive homes even more expensive. Many people have to stretch way beyond their means to afford an entry-level house here, myself included. While PV systems do pay for themselves, mortgage lenders don’t consider it, so it could push people outside what they will qualify for a loan.
In agreement regarding the GEM cars, better known as Low Speed Vehicles or Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (LSV/NEV), what is needed is a citywide NEV transportation plan, similar to what Lincoln has completed and Rocklin is working on. I don’t, however, think the greenbelt needs to altered in any way to accommodate the GEM cars, though I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it, if done well.
i agree with the sentiment, but i’ve gotta say that putting gem cars on bike paths is a terrible idea. we’ve already gopt a very nice road system in this town, with minimal amounts of traffic, and speed limits that fit nicely with the top speeds of gem cars. putting them on bike lanes makes no sense to me. it’s enough of a pain dodging those golf-cart things on campus.
the solar panel thing is a great idea, though. additionally, perhaps we can just replace the non-workign solar panels in community park with real solar panels, or start putting little solar panel shades over parking lots in town (as rifkin once suggested).
working with restaurants in town to try and set up an intensive food scrap composting system, as they have in middlebury VT, would be another possible idea.
finally, this belgian trash system that reduced waste by charging people by the weight of the trash in their trash can each week woiuld be an interesting way to approximate the whole earth day trash system. i heard that in germany they just passed a law requiring stores to take back all the packaginjg of the thuings they sold, and that this dramatically reduced waste, becaused retail pressured the manufacturers, but that’d work better on a statewide level, it would just kill retail if the neighboring city didn’t do it.
i agree with the sentiment, but i’ve gotta say that putting gem cars on bike paths is a terrible idea. we’ve already gopt a very nice road system in this town, with minimal amounts of traffic, and speed limits that fit nicely with the top speeds of gem cars. putting them on bike lanes makes no sense to me. it’s enough of a pain dodging those golf-cart things on campus.
the solar panel thing is a great idea, though. additionally, perhaps we can just replace the non-workign solar panels in community park with real solar panels, or start putting little solar panel shades over parking lots in town (as rifkin once suggested).
working with restaurants in town to try and set up an intensive food scrap composting system, as they have in middlebury VT, would be another possible idea.
finally, this belgian trash system that reduced waste by charging people by the weight of the trash in their trash can each week woiuld be an interesting way to approximate the whole earth day trash system. i heard that in germany they just passed a law requiring stores to take back all the packaginjg of the thuings they sold, and that this dramatically reduced waste, becaused retail pressured the manufacturers, but that’d work better on a statewide level, it would just kill retail if the neighboring city didn’t do it.
i agree with the sentiment, but i’ve gotta say that putting gem cars on bike paths is a terrible idea. we’ve already gopt a very nice road system in this town, with minimal amounts of traffic, and speed limits that fit nicely with the top speeds of gem cars. putting them on bike lanes makes no sense to me. it’s enough of a pain dodging those golf-cart things on campus.
the solar panel thing is a great idea, though. additionally, perhaps we can just replace the non-workign solar panels in community park with real solar panels, or start putting little solar panel shades over parking lots in town (as rifkin once suggested).
working with restaurants in town to try and set up an intensive food scrap composting system, as they have in middlebury VT, would be another possible idea.
finally, this belgian trash system that reduced waste by charging people by the weight of the trash in their trash can each week woiuld be an interesting way to approximate the whole earth day trash system. i heard that in germany they just passed a law requiring stores to take back all the packaginjg of the thuings they sold, and that this dramatically reduced waste, becaused retail pressured the manufacturers, but that’d work better on a statewide level, it would just kill retail if the neighboring city didn’t do it.
i agree with the sentiment, but i’ve gotta say that putting gem cars on bike paths is a terrible idea. we’ve already gopt a very nice road system in this town, with minimal amounts of traffic, and speed limits that fit nicely with the top speeds of gem cars. putting them on bike lanes makes no sense to me. it’s enough of a pain dodging those golf-cart things on campus.
the solar panel thing is a great idea, though. additionally, perhaps we can just replace the non-workign solar panels in community park with real solar panels, or start putting little solar panel shades over parking lots in town (as rifkin once suggested).
working with restaurants in town to try and set up an intensive food scrap composting system, as they have in middlebury VT, would be another possible idea.
finally, this belgian trash system that reduced waste by charging people by the weight of the trash in their trash can each week woiuld be an interesting way to approximate the whole earth day trash system. i heard that in germany they just passed a law requiring stores to take back all the packaginjg of the thuings they sold, and that this dramatically reduced waste, becaused retail pressured the manufacturers, but that’d work better on a statewide level, it would just kill retail if the neighboring city didn’t do it.
as for housing prices, it’s the bubble inflation of the land that the houses sit upon that makes houses here expensive, not the actual cost of making the house. adding solar panels wouldn’t bump things up all that much, it’d just cut into the margin of the seller.
as for housing prices, it’s the bubble inflation of the land that the houses sit upon that makes houses here expensive, not the actual cost of making the house. adding solar panels wouldn’t bump things up all that much, it’d just cut into the margin of the seller.
as for housing prices, it’s the bubble inflation of the land that the houses sit upon that makes houses here expensive, not the actual cost of making the house. adding solar panels wouldn’t bump things up all that much, it’d just cut into the margin of the seller.
as for housing prices, it’s the bubble inflation of the land that the houses sit upon that makes houses here expensive, not the actual cost of making the house. adding solar panels wouldn’t bump things up all that much, it’d just cut into the margin of the seller.
mike, our power plants aren’t moving to china, period, for very obvious reasons of the exorbitant energy loss with transmission underneath the pacific ocean. most of our power comes from in-state, or else from neighboring states in the west. red herring.
next, manufacturing is not moving to china and mexico for the environmental regs, it’s moving there because of the lower costs of employing cheaper non-union labor, and to a lesser degree the advantage of exchange rate costs.
mike, our power plants aren’t moving to china, period, for very obvious reasons of the exorbitant energy loss with transmission underneath the pacific ocean. most of our power comes from in-state, or else from neighboring states in the west. red herring.
next, manufacturing is not moving to china and mexico for the environmental regs, it’s moving there because of the lower costs of employing cheaper non-union labor, and to a lesser degree the advantage of exchange rate costs.
mike, our power plants aren’t moving to china, period, for very obvious reasons of the exorbitant energy loss with transmission underneath the pacific ocean. most of our power comes from in-state, or else from neighboring states in the west. red herring.
next, manufacturing is not moving to china and mexico for the environmental regs, it’s moving there because of the lower costs of employing cheaper non-union labor, and to a lesser degree the advantage of exchange rate costs.
mike, our power plants aren’t moving to china, period, for very obvious reasons of the exorbitant energy loss with transmission underneath the pacific ocean. most of our power comes from in-state, or else from neighboring states in the west. red herring.
next, manufacturing is not moving to china and mexico for the environmental regs, it’s moving there because of the lower costs of employing cheaper non-union labor, and to a lesser degree the advantage of exchange rate costs.
NEV’s on bike paths in the greenbelt, probably not the greatest idea, though some could be widened to accommodate. Generally need a minimum of 16 feet width.
NEV’s on bike lanes can definitely coexist. NEV’s can travel on streets greater than 35 mph if they have a dedicated lane. They would need 8 feet of bike lane width, which we have in many parts of Davis. In other places, like 2nd street and Mace Blvd, I believe the existing lanes could be reduced to ensure a an 8-foot NEV/bike lane and avoid reducing the speed limit to 35 mph. This way, NEVs, bikes, and motor vehicles can all access peacefully coexist with safe separation.
NEV’s on bike paths in the greenbelt, probably not the greatest idea, though some could be widened to accommodate. Generally need a minimum of 16 feet width.
NEV’s on bike lanes can definitely coexist. NEV’s can travel on streets greater than 35 mph if they have a dedicated lane. They would need 8 feet of bike lane width, which we have in many parts of Davis. In other places, like 2nd street and Mace Blvd, I believe the existing lanes could be reduced to ensure a an 8-foot NEV/bike lane and avoid reducing the speed limit to 35 mph. This way, NEVs, bikes, and motor vehicles can all access peacefully coexist with safe separation.
NEV’s on bike paths in the greenbelt, probably not the greatest idea, though some could be widened to accommodate. Generally need a minimum of 16 feet width.
NEV’s on bike lanes can definitely coexist. NEV’s can travel on streets greater than 35 mph if they have a dedicated lane. They would need 8 feet of bike lane width, which we have in many parts of Davis. In other places, like 2nd street and Mace Blvd, I believe the existing lanes could be reduced to ensure a an 8-foot NEV/bike lane and avoid reducing the speed limit to 35 mph. This way, NEVs, bikes, and motor vehicles can all access peacefully coexist with safe separation.
NEV’s on bike paths in the greenbelt, probably not the greatest idea, though some could be widened to accommodate. Generally need a minimum of 16 feet width.
NEV’s on bike lanes can definitely coexist. NEV’s can travel on streets greater than 35 mph if they have a dedicated lane. They would need 8 feet of bike lane width, which we have in many parts of Davis. In other places, like 2nd street and Mace Blvd, I believe the existing lanes could be reduced to ensure a an 8-foot NEV/bike lane and avoid reducing the speed limit to 35 mph. This way, NEVs, bikes, and motor vehicles can all access peacefully coexist with safe separation.
Housing costs could be lowered if the public demanded smaller homes. Why do we “need” 3,000 square-foot homes for an average family size of 2.59 to 3.1? The average size of the American home has increased about 140% over the past fifty years, from about 1,000 square feet in 1950 to over 2349 square feet in 2004–and it’s increasing all the time.
Why are these monstrous McMansions necessary? It’s because we, as a culture, have been brainwashed into excessive consumption and into thinking our personal identity derives from the amount and cumulative dollar worth of our possessions.
Much could be accomplished if we re-oriented our priorities to not include the mindless consumerism and “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality that has gripped America since after WWII. First it was buy larger homes, and then (of course) we had to start filling up those big homes with “things,” and then we have to make sure we have as good or better than our neighbor.
Since a major source of each person’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from home heating, cooling, and electricty use, smaller houses could help alleviate contributions to global warming. Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.
It’s great that we can dialogue about this, but I really have my doubts that the vast majority of the American public will put their money where their mouths are and seriously consider a lifestyle change. I seriously doubt that most Davisites would do this, despite the town’s vaunted reputation for being a progressive community. Just take a look at the size of the homes in the new subdivisions. It’s very wasteful for the increasingly smaller family sizes that have been the trend.
Housing costs could be lowered if the public demanded smaller homes. Why do we “need” 3,000 square-foot homes for an average family size of 2.59 to 3.1? The average size of the American home has increased about 140% over the past fifty years, from about 1,000 square feet in 1950 to over 2349 square feet in 2004–and it’s increasing all the time.
Why are these monstrous McMansions necessary? It’s because we, as a culture, have been brainwashed into excessive consumption and into thinking our personal identity derives from the amount and cumulative dollar worth of our possessions.
Much could be accomplished if we re-oriented our priorities to not include the mindless consumerism and “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality that has gripped America since after WWII. First it was buy larger homes, and then (of course) we had to start filling up those big homes with “things,” and then we have to make sure we have as good or better than our neighbor.
Since a major source of each person’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from home heating, cooling, and electricty use, smaller houses could help alleviate contributions to global warming. Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.
It’s great that we can dialogue about this, but I really have my doubts that the vast majority of the American public will put their money where their mouths are and seriously consider a lifestyle change. I seriously doubt that most Davisites would do this, despite the town’s vaunted reputation for being a progressive community. Just take a look at the size of the homes in the new subdivisions. It’s very wasteful for the increasingly smaller family sizes that have been the trend.
Housing costs could be lowered if the public demanded smaller homes. Why do we “need” 3,000 square-foot homes for an average family size of 2.59 to 3.1? The average size of the American home has increased about 140% over the past fifty years, from about 1,000 square feet in 1950 to over 2349 square feet in 2004–and it’s increasing all the time.
Why are these monstrous McMansions necessary? It’s because we, as a culture, have been brainwashed into excessive consumption and into thinking our personal identity derives from the amount and cumulative dollar worth of our possessions.
Much could be accomplished if we re-oriented our priorities to not include the mindless consumerism and “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality that has gripped America since after WWII. First it was buy larger homes, and then (of course) we had to start filling up those big homes with “things,” and then we have to make sure we have as good or better than our neighbor.
Since a major source of each person’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from home heating, cooling, and electricty use, smaller houses could help alleviate contributions to global warming. Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.
It’s great that we can dialogue about this, but I really have my doubts that the vast majority of the American public will put their money where their mouths are and seriously consider a lifestyle change. I seriously doubt that most Davisites would do this, despite the town’s vaunted reputation for being a progressive community. Just take a look at the size of the homes in the new subdivisions. It’s very wasteful for the increasingly smaller family sizes that have been the trend.
Housing costs could be lowered if the public demanded smaller homes. Why do we “need” 3,000 square-foot homes for an average family size of 2.59 to 3.1? The average size of the American home has increased about 140% over the past fifty years, from about 1,000 square feet in 1950 to over 2349 square feet in 2004–and it’s increasing all the time.
Why are these monstrous McMansions necessary? It’s because we, as a culture, have been brainwashed into excessive consumption and into thinking our personal identity derives from the amount and cumulative dollar worth of our possessions.
Much could be accomplished if we re-oriented our priorities to not include the mindless consumerism and “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality that has gripped America since after WWII. First it was buy larger homes, and then (of course) we had to start filling up those big homes with “things,” and then we have to make sure we have as good or better than our neighbor.
Since a major source of each person’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from home heating, cooling, and electricty use, smaller houses could help alleviate contributions to global warming. Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.
It’s great that we can dialogue about this, but I really have my doubts that the vast majority of the American public will put their money where their mouths are and seriously consider a lifestyle change. I seriously doubt that most Davisites would do this, despite the town’s vaunted reputation for being a progressive community. Just take a look at the size of the homes in the new subdivisions. It’s very wasteful for the increasingly smaller family sizes that have been the trend.
EVs on the greenbelt paths where little kids are riding scooters is truly terrible idea. I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
EVs on the greenbelt paths where little kids are riding scooters is truly terrible idea. I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
EVs on the greenbelt paths where little kids are riding scooters is truly terrible idea. I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
EVs on the greenbelt paths where little kids are riding scooters is truly terrible idea. I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
I believe DPD meant widening the paths to accommodate GEMs or NEVs. He bikes himself, so I’m sure he is not in support of interfering with bike or pedestrian traffic.
I believe DPD meant widening the paths to accommodate GEMs or NEVs. He bikes himself, so I’m sure he is not in support of interfering with bike or pedestrian traffic.
I believe DPD meant widening the paths to accommodate GEMs or NEVs. He bikes himself, so I’m sure he is not in support of interfering with bike or pedestrian traffic.
I believe DPD meant widening the paths to accommodate GEMs or NEVs. He bikes himself, so I’m sure he is not in support of interfering with bike or pedestrian traffic.
Solar panels on roofs of new housing… wasn’t that included in Covell Village (RIP)?
This is only a theoretical suggestion, as there isn’t going to be a whole lot of new home construction in Davis, if current attitudes prevail.
Solar panels on roofs of new housing… wasn’t that included in Covell Village (RIP)?
This is only a theoretical suggestion, as there isn’t going to be a whole lot of new home construction in Davis, if current attitudes prevail.
Solar panels on roofs of new housing… wasn’t that included in Covell Village (RIP)?
This is only a theoretical suggestion, as there isn’t going to be a whole lot of new home construction in Davis, if current attitudes prevail.
Solar panels on roofs of new housing… wasn’t that included in Covell Village (RIP)?
This is only a theoretical suggestion, as there isn’t going to be a whole lot of new home construction in Davis, if current attitudes prevail.
“First, what is an extra 15 to 20 thousand on top of $400,000 to $600,000…”
At 6% mortgage interest, about $90 – $120 a month, I think.
“First, what is an extra 15 to 20 thousand on top of $400,000 to $600,000…”
At 6% mortgage interest, about $90 – $120 a month, I think.
“First, what is an extra 15 to 20 thousand on top of $400,000 to $600,000…”
At 6% mortgage interest, about $90 – $120 a month, I think.
“First, what is an extra 15 to 20 thousand on top of $400,000 to $600,000…”
At 6% mortgage interest, about $90 – $120 a month, I think.
I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
This makes no sense. By this logic, bicycles and pedestrians shouldn’t share a path on the greenbelt, bicycles and cars shouldn’t share the same lanes where there is no dedicated bike lane, NEVs and cars shouldn’t share lanes, and cars shouldn’t share lanes with big rigs, etc. due to the weight and/or momentum difference.
There is no reason why a collision between an NEV and bicycle should or would occur in a directional bike lane. NEVs are very visible and do not travel much faster than a bicycle. There hasn’t been a fatality associated with an NEV with another automobile , let alone a bicyclist (at least statewide). If an NEV wants to pass a cyclist in the rare event that need should occur, it can simply move into the automobile lane for the short time necessary to pass. It’s really a non-issue.
I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
This makes no sense. By this logic, bicycles and pedestrians shouldn’t share a path on the greenbelt, bicycles and cars shouldn’t share the same lanes where there is no dedicated bike lane, NEVs and cars shouldn’t share lanes, and cars shouldn’t share lanes with big rigs, etc. due to the weight and/or momentum difference.
There is no reason why a collision between an NEV and bicycle should or would occur in a directional bike lane. NEVs are very visible and do not travel much faster than a bicycle. There hasn’t been a fatality associated with an NEV with another automobile , let alone a bicyclist (at least statewide). If an NEV wants to pass a cyclist in the rare event that need should occur, it can simply move into the automobile lane for the short time necessary to pass. It’s really a non-issue.
I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
This makes no sense. By this logic, bicycles and pedestrians shouldn’t share a path on the greenbelt, bicycles and cars shouldn’t share the same lanes where there is no dedicated bike lane, NEVs and cars shouldn’t share lanes, and cars shouldn’t share lanes with big rigs, etc. due to the weight and/or momentum difference.
There is no reason why a collision between an NEV and bicycle should or would occur in a directional bike lane. NEVs are very visible and do not travel much faster than a bicycle. There hasn’t been a fatality associated with an NEV with another automobile , let alone a bicyclist (at least statewide). If an NEV wants to pass a cyclist in the rare event that need should occur, it can simply move into the automobile lane for the short time necessary to pass. It’s really a non-issue.
I also don’t think it would be a good idea to put them in the bike lanes — they are still much heavier and faster than most cyclists.
This makes no sense. By this logic, bicycles and pedestrians shouldn’t share a path on the greenbelt, bicycles and cars shouldn’t share the same lanes where there is no dedicated bike lane, NEVs and cars shouldn’t share lanes, and cars shouldn’t share lanes with big rigs, etc. due to the weight and/or momentum difference.
There is no reason why a collision between an NEV and bicycle should or would occur in a directional bike lane. NEVs are very visible and do not travel much faster than a bicycle. There hasn’t been a fatality associated with an NEV with another automobile , let alone a bicyclist (at least statewide). If an NEV wants to pass a cyclist in the rare event that need should occur, it can simply move into the automobile lane for the short time necessary to pass. It’s really a non-issue.
i fail to see the problem with just keeping the gems and other golf carts on the street where they currently run. they drive the speed limit, are roughly the same size and shape as cars (albeit not the same weight), park in the same general places, etc.
there’s no need to go and work up as big complicated solution involving widening lanes and pouring asphalt when the status quo works perfectly well. just keep ’em out of my bike lane, it’s bad enough dodging stray pedestrians who can’t seem to figure out the difference between a bike lane and a sidewalk (rule of thumb: concrete = pedestrians, asphalt = bikes).
oh, and while we’re at it, i’m all for ticketing the fancypantsed cyclists that insist on riding on 5th street in the car lane at a speed far under the flow of traffic when there is a perfectly good dedicated bike path just 5 feet away. everyone in their place, and the whole system runs smoother.
as for smaller homes, i really think that’s as driven by developers as anything else. if all you’ve got is ranch houses and mcmansions to choose from, people buying houses will have no choices but to buy them. the reason for the huge buildings is that it helps to justify the exorbitant price of the house, which is derived not from the house itself but from the market bubble and cost of land. people feel like they’re getting more when they get a gargantuan, shoddily-built house.
personally, i’d rather have a little bungalow than one of those houses, but given the cost of actually buying one, it’s a moot discussion.
i fail to see the problem with just keeping the gems and other golf carts on the street where they currently run. they drive the speed limit, are roughly the same size and shape as cars (albeit not the same weight), park in the same general places, etc.
there’s no need to go and work up as big complicated solution involving widening lanes and pouring asphalt when the status quo works perfectly well. just keep ’em out of my bike lane, it’s bad enough dodging stray pedestrians who can’t seem to figure out the difference between a bike lane and a sidewalk (rule of thumb: concrete = pedestrians, asphalt = bikes).
oh, and while we’re at it, i’m all for ticketing the fancypantsed cyclists that insist on riding on 5th street in the car lane at a speed far under the flow of traffic when there is a perfectly good dedicated bike path just 5 feet away. everyone in their place, and the whole system runs smoother.
as for smaller homes, i really think that’s as driven by developers as anything else. if all you’ve got is ranch houses and mcmansions to choose from, people buying houses will have no choices but to buy them. the reason for the huge buildings is that it helps to justify the exorbitant price of the house, which is derived not from the house itself but from the market bubble and cost of land. people feel like they’re getting more when they get a gargantuan, shoddily-built house.
personally, i’d rather have a little bungalow than one of those houses, but given the cost of actually buying one, it’s a moot discussion.
i fail to see the problem with just keeping the gems and other golf carts on the street where they currently run. they drive the speed limit, are roughly the same size and shape as cars (albeit not the same weight), park in the same general places, etc.
there’s no need to go and work up as big complicated solution involving widening lanes and pouring asphalt when the status quo works perfectly well. just keep ’em out of my bike lane, it’s bad enough dodging stray pedestrians who can’t seem to figure out the difference between a bike lane and a sidewalk (rule of thumb: concrete = pedestrians, asphalt = bikes).
oh, and while we’re at it, i’m all for ticketing the fancypantsed cyclists that insist on riding on 5th street in the car lane at a speed far under the flow of traffic when there is a perfectly good dedicated bike path just 5 feet away. everyone in their place, and the whole system runs smoother.
as for smaller homes, i really think that’s as driven by developers as anything else. if all you’ve got is ranch houses and mcmansions to choose from, people buying houses will have no choices but to buy them. the reason for the huge buildings is that it helps to justify the exorbitant price of the house, which is derived not from the house itself but from the market bubble and cost of land. people feel like they’re getting more when they get a gargantuan, shoddily-built house.
personally, i’d rather have a little bungalow than one of those houses, but given the cost of actually buying one, it’s a moot discussion.
i fail to see the problem with just keeping the gems and other golf carts on the street where they currently run. they drive the speed limit, are roughly the same size and shape as cars (albeit not the same weight), park in the same general places, etc.
there’s no need to go and work up as big complicated solution involving widening lanes and pouring asphalt when the status quo works perfectly well. just keep ’em out of my bike lane, it’s bad enough dodging stray pedestrians who can’t seem to figure out the difference between a bike lane and a sidewalk (rule of thumb: concrete = pedestrians, asphalt = bikes).
oh, and while we’re at it, i’m all for ticketing the fancypantsed cyclists that insist on riding on 5th street in the car lane at a speed far under the flow of traffic when there is a perfectly good dedicated bike path just 5 feet away. everyone in their place, and the whole system runs smoother.
as for smaller homes, i really think that’s as driven by developers as anything else. if all you’ve got is ranch houses and mcmansions to choose from, people buying houses will have no choices but to buy them. the reason for the huge buildings is that it helps to justify the exorbitant price of the house, which is derived not from the house itself but from the market bubble and cost of land. people feel like they’re getting more when they get a gargantuan, shoddily-built house.
personally, i’d rather have a little bungalow than one of those houses, but given the cost of actually buying one, it’s a moot discussion.
Is setting rules on where vehicles go something the city can even do by itself? Isn’t that covered by the state vehicle code?
Is setting rules on where vehicles go something the city can even do by itself? Isn’t that covered by the state vehicle code?
Is setting rules on where vehicles go something the city can even do by itself? Isn’t that covered by the state vehicle code?
Is setting rules on where vehicles go something the city can even do by itself? Isn’t that covered by the state vehicle code?
It’s called momentum, Brian. I regularly go on the greenbelt with my kids. I don’t want some nitwit in an overgrown golfcart zooming along it.
It’s called momentum, Brian. I regularly go on the greenbelt with my kids. I don’t want some nitwit in an overgrown golfcart zooming along it.
It’s called momentum, Brian. I regularly go on the greenbelt with my kids. I don’t want some nitwit in an overgrown golfcart zooming along it.
It’s called momentum, Brian. I regularly go on the greenbelt with my kids. I don’t want some nitwit in an overgrown golfcart zooming along it.
Other communities have been able to make it work, so I don’t see why we cannot make it work in Davis.
Other communities have been able to make it work, so I don’t see why we cannot make it work in Davis.
Other communities have been able to make it work, so I don’t see why we cannot make it work in Davis.
Other communities have been able to make it work, so I don’t see why we cannot make it work in Davis.
More on solar panels, from Howstuffworks.com:
How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?
If you have read the HSW article entitled How Solar Yard Lights Work, then you can get a feeling for how much power a solar cell can produce. The solar panel shown in that article contains 4 cells, and each of them can produce 0.45 volts and 100 milliamps, or 45 milliwatts. Each cell measures 2 inches by 0.5 inches. In other words, with these solar cells you can generate 45 milliwatts in one square inch (6.45 square cm). For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that a panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch.
To calculate how many square inches of solar panel you need for a house, you need to know:
* How much power the house consumes on average
* Where the house is located (so you can calculate mean solar days, average rainfall, etc.). This question is impossible to answer unless you have a specific location in mind. We’ll assume that on an average day the solar panels generate their maximum power for 5 hours.
The first question is actually pretty interesting, so let’s work on it.
A “typical home” in America can use either electricity or gas to provide heat — heat for the house, the hot water, the clothes dryer and the stove/oven. If you were to power a house with solar electricity, you would certainly use gas appliances because solar electricity is so expensive. This means that what you would be powering with solar electricity are things like the refrigerator, the lights, the computer, the TV, stereo equipment, motors in things like furnace fans and the washer, etc. Let’s say that all of those things average out to 600 watts on average. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.
From our calculations and assumptions above, we know that a solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That’s a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation.
If you want to have a small room air conditioner in your bedroom, double everything.
Because solar electricity is so expensive, you would normally go to great lengths to reduce your electricity consumption. Instead of a desktop computer and a monitor you would use a laptop computer. You would use fluorescent lights instead of incandescent. You would use a small B&W TV instead of a large color set. You would get a small, extremely efficient refrigerator. By doing these things you might be able to reduce your average power consumption to 100 watts. This would cut the size of your solar panel and its cost by a factor of 6, and this might bring it into the realm of possibility.
The thing to remember, however, is that 100 watts per hour purchased from the power grid would only cost about 24 cents a day right now, or $91 a year. That’s why you don’t see many solar houses unless they are in very remote locations. When it only costs about $100 a year to purchase power from the grid, it is hard to justify spending thousands of dollars on a solar system.
More on solar panels, from Howstuffworks.com:
How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?
If you have read the HSW article entitled How Solar Yard Lights Work, then you can get a feeling for how much power a solar cell can produce. The solar panel shown in that article contains 4 cells, and each of them can produce 0.45 volts and 100 milliamps, or 45 milliwatts. Each cell measures 2 inches by 0.5 inches. In other words, with these solar cells you can generate 45 milliwatts in one square inch (6.45 square cm). For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that a panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch.
To calculate how many square inches of solar panel you need for a house, you need to know:
* How much power the house consumes on average
* Where the house is located (so you can calculate mean solar days, average rainfall, etc.). This question is impossible to answer unless you have a specific location in mind. We’ll assume that on an average day the solar panels generate their maximum power for 5 hours.
The first question is actually pretty interesting, so let’s work on it.
A “typical home” in America can use either electricity or gas to provide heat — heat for the house, the hot water, the clothes dryer and the stove/oven. If you were to power a house with solar electricity, you would certainly use gas appliances because solar electricity is so expensive. This means that what you would be powering with solar electricity are things like the refrigerator, the lights, the computer, the TV, stereo equipment, motors in things like furnace fans and the washer, etc. Let’s say that all of those things average out to 600 watts on average. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.
From our calculations and assumptions above, we know that a solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That’s a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation.
If you want to have a small room air conditioner in your bedroom, double everything.
Because solar electricity is so expensive, you would normally go to great lengths to reduce your electricity consumption. Instead of a desktop computer and a monitor you would use a laptop computer. You would use fluorescent lights instead of incandescent. You would use a small B&W TV instead of a large color set. You would get a small, extremely efficient refrigerator. By doing these things you might be able to reduce your average power consumption to 100 watts. This would cut the size of your solar panel and its cost by a factor of 6, and this might bring it into the realm of possibility.
The thing to remember, however, is that 100 watts per hour purchased from the power grid would only cost about 24 cents a day right now, or $91 a year. That’s why you don’t see many solar houses unless they are in very remote locations. When it only costs about $100 a year to purchase power from the grid, it is hard to justify spending thousands of dollars on a solar system.
More on solar panels, from Howstuffworks.com:
How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?
If you have read the HSW article entitled How Solar Yard Lights Work, then you can get a feeling for how much power a solar cell can produce. The solar panel shown in that article contains 4 cells, and each of them can produce 0.45 volts and 100 milliamps, or 45 milliwatts. Each cell measures 2 inches by 0.5 inches. In other words, with these solar cells you can generate 45 milliwatts in one square inch (6.45 square cm). For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that a panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch.
To calculate how many square inches of solar panel you need for a house, you need to know:
* How much power the house consumes on average
* Where the house is located (so you can calculate mean solar days, average rainfall, etc.). This question is impossible to answer unless you have a specific location in mind. We’ll assume that on an average day the solar panels generate their maximum power for 5 hours.
The first question is actually pretty interesting, so let’s work on it.
A “typical home” in America can use either electricity or gas to provide heat — heat for the house, the hot water, the clothes dryer and the stove/oven. If you were to power a house with solar electricity, you would certainly use gas appliances because solar electricity is so expensive. This means that what you would be powering with solar electricity are things like the refrigerator, the lights, the computer, the TV, stereo equipment, motors in things like furnace fans and the washer, etc. Let’s say that all of those things average out to 600 watts on average. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.
From our calculations and assumptions above, we know that a solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That’s a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation.
If you want to have a small room air conditioner in your bedroom, double everything.
Because solar electricity is so expensive, you would normally go to great lengths to reduce your electricity consumption. Instead of a desktop computer and a monitor you would use a laptop computer. You would use fluorescent lights instead of incandescent. You would use a small B&W TV instead of a large color set. You would get a small, extremely efficient refrigerator. By doing these things you might be able to reduce your average power consumption to 100 watts. This would cut the size of your solar panel and its cost by a factor of 6, and this might bring it into the realm of possibility.
The thing to remember, however, is that 100 watts per hour purchased from the power grid would only cost about 24 cents a day right now, or $91 a year. That’s why you don’t see many solar houses unless they are in very remote locations. When it only costs about $100 a year to purchase power from the grid, it is hard to justify spending thousands of dollars on a solar system.
More on solar panels, from Howstuffworks.com:
How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?
If you have read the HSW article entitled How Solar Yard Lights Work, then you can get a feeling for how much power a solar cell can produce. The solar panel shown in that article contains 4 cells, and each of them can produce 0.45 volts and 100 milliamps, or 45 milliwatts. Each cell measures 2 inches by 0.5 inches. In other words, with these solar cells you can generate 45 milliwatts in one square inch (6.45 square cm). For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that a panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch.
To calculate how many square inches of solar panel you need for a house, you need to know:
* How much power the house consumes on average
* Where the house is located (so you can calculate mean solar days, average rainfall, etc.). This question is impossible to answer unless you have a specific location in mind. We’ll assume that on an average day the solar panels generate their maximum power for 5 hours.
The first question is actually pretty interesting, so let’s work on it.
A “typical home” in America can use either electricity or gas to provide heat — heat for the house, the hot water, the clothes dryer and the stove/oven. If you were to power a house with solar electricity, you would certainly use gas appliances because solar electricity is so expensive. This means that what you would be powering with solar electricity are things like the refrigerator, the lights, the computer, the TV, stereo equipment, motors in things like furnace fans and the washer, etc. Let’s say that all of those things average out to 600 watts on average. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.
From our calculations and assumptions above, we know that a solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That’s a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation.
If you want to have a small room air conditioner in your bedroom, double everything.
Because solar electricity is so expensive, you would normally go to great lengths to reduce your electricity consumption. Instead of a desktop computer and a monitor you would use a laptop computer. You would use fluorescent lights instead of incandescent. You would use a small B&W TV instead of a large color set. You would get a small, extremely efficient refrigerator. By doing these things you might be able to reduce your average power consumption to 100 watts. This would cut the size of your solar panel and its cost by a factor of 6, and this might bring it into the realm of possibility.
The thing to remember, however, is that 100 watts per hour purchased from the power grid would only cost about 24 cents a day right now, or $91 a year. That’s why you don’t see many solar houses unless they are in very remote locations. When it only costs about $100 a year to purchase power from the grid, it is hard to justify spending thousands of dollars on a solar system.
Anonymous 11:05:
I take my children on the Greenbelt too. I don’t advocate GEMs on the greenbelt. In fact, there are few situations where a GEM would choose to travel on the greenbelt instead of a regular surface street (Willet Elementary/West Davis and South Davis/Mace Ranch overcrossings are two connections I think would benefit GEMS, but neither are on a greenbelt). But you (or another anonymous) said bike lanes not bike paths, and they are distinctly different.
Wu, you’re misunderstanding. We already have the pavement required, for example on 2nd street between L and Mace. It’s simply a matter of shifting the striping. There’s already at least an 8-foot bike lane on the south side of second. I rode it this morning. This would allow GEM car access to Target. In other places, it may only require another foot or two of pavement. I repeat, they only need a dedicated lane on roads with a speed limit >35 mpg, of which there are few in Davis. I’m actually quite amazed I have to sell the group on this. You probably wouldn’t object to additional pavement if it were for bicycles.
Don’s calculations are fairly accurate and you generally try to reduce your consumption as much as possible prior to installing solar panels, and the decision isn’t an economic one but one where other values and factors come into consideration. For those curious, I have a 2.5KW system for my rather small house and family of five and my annual true-up cost is approximately $350. Translated into percentage, it’s approximately 70 percent with some basic conservation measures in place (e.g. all flourescent bulbs).
For reference, they do generally cover their costs, even with a loan, and with a larger system you’re essentially locking in today’s electricity rates, not to mention reducing one’s carbon footprint. What doesn’t mention is that cost per 100 watts could and likely will rise in real dollars as the cost of natural gas climbs relative to inflation.
Anonymous 11:05:
I take my children on the Greenbelt too. I don’t advocate GEMs on the greenbelt. In fact, there are few situations where a GEM would choose to travel on the greenbelt instead of a regular surface street (Willet Elementary/West Davis and South Davis/Mace Ranch overcrossings are two connections I think would benefit GEMS, but neither are on a greenbelt). But you (or another anonymous) said bike lanes not bike paths, and they are distinctly different.
Wu, you’re misunderstanding. We already have the pavement required, for example on 2nd street between L and Mace. It’s simply a matter of shifting the striping. There’s already at least an 8-foot bike lane on the south side of second. I rode it this morning. This would allow GEM car access to Target. In other places, it may only require another foot or two of pavement. I repeat, they only need a dedicated lane on roads with a speed limit >35 mpg, of which there are few in Davis. I’m actually quite amazed I have to sell the group on this. You probably wouldn’t object to additional pavement if it were for bicycles.
Don’s calculations are fairly accurate and you generally try to reduce your consumption as much as possible prior to installing solar panels, and the decision isn’t an economic one but one where other values and factors come into consideration. For those curious, I have a 2.5KW system for my rather small house and family of five and my annual true-up cost is approximately $350. Translated into percentage, it’s approximately 70 percent with some basic conservation measures in place (e.g. all flourescent bulbs).
For reference, they do generally cover their costs, even with a loan, and with a larger system you’re essentially locking in today’s electricity rates, not to mention reducing one’s carbon footprint. What doesn’t mention is that cost per 100 watts could and likely will rise in real dollars as the cost of natural gas climbs relative to inflation.
Anonymous 11:05:
I take my children on the Greenbelt too. I don’t advocate GEMs on the greenbelt. In fact, there are few situations where a GEM would choose to travel on the greenbelt instead of a regular surface street (Willet Elementary/West Davis and South Davis/Mace Ranch overcrossings are two connections I think would benefit GEMS, but neither are on a greenbelt). But you (or another anonymous) said bike lanes not bike paths, and they are distinctly different.
Wu, you’re misunderstanding. We already have the pavement required, for example on 2nd street between L and Mace. It’s simply a matter of shifting the striping. There’s already at least an 8-foot bike lane on the south side of second. I rode it this morning. This would allow GEM car access to Target. In other places, it may only require another foot or two of pavement. I repeat, they only need a dedicated lane on roads with a speed limit >35 mpg, of which there are few in Davis. I’m actually quite amazed I have to sell the group on this. You probably wouldn’t object to additional pavement if it were for bicycles.
Don’s calculations are fairly accurate and you generally try to reduce your consumption as much as possible prior to installing solar panels, and the decision isn’t an economic one but one where other values and factors come into consideration. For those curious, I have a 2.5KW system for my rather small house and family of five and my annual true-up cost is approximately $350. Translated into percentage, it’s approximately 70 percent with some basic conservation measures in place (e.g. all flourescent bulbs).
For reference, they do generally cover their costs, even with a loan, and with a larger system you’re essentially locking in today’s electricity rates, not to mention reducing one’s carbon footprint. What doesn’t mention is that cost per 100 watts could and likely will rise in real dollars as the cost of natural gas climbs relative to inflation.
Anonymous 11:05:
I take my children on the Greenbelt too. I don’t advocate GEMs on the greenbelt. In fact, there are few situations where a GEM would choose to travel on the greenbelt instead of a regular surface street (Willet Elementary/West Davis and South Davis/Mace Ranch overcrossings are two connections I think would benefit GEMS, but neither are on a greenbelt). But you (or another anonymous) said bike lanes not bike paths, and they are distinctly different.
Wu, you’re misunderstanding. We already have the pavement required, for example on 2nd street between L and Mace. It’s simply a matter of shifting the striping. There’s already at least an 8-foot bike lane on the south side of second. I rode it this morning. This would allow GEM car access to Target. In other places, it may only require another foot or two of pavement. I repeat, they only need a dedicated lane on roads with a speed limit >35 mpg, of which there are few in Davis. I’m actually quite amazed I have to sell the group on this. You probably wouldn’t object to additional pavement if it were for bicycles.
Don’s calculations are fairly accurate and you generally try to reduce your consumption as much as possible prior to installing solar panels, and the decision isn’t an economic one but one where other values and factors come into consideration. For those curious, I have a 2.5KW system for my rather small house and family of five and my annual true-up cost is approximately $350. Translated into percentage, it’s approximately 70 percent with some basic conservation measures in place (e.g. all flourescent bulbs).
For reference, they do generally cover their costs, even with a loan, and with a larger system you’re essentially locking in today’s electricity rates, not to mention reducing one’s carbon footprint. What doesn’t mention is that cost per 100 watts could and likely will rise in real dollars as the cost of natural gas climbs relative to inflation.
Yes, let’s make our number one concern about Target be the accessibility of a Gem car to the store. Ironic comments indeed within a “Save the Planet” posting. Over consumtion, keeping up with Joneses, large carbon footprint …hello? Any of this ringing a bell?
Yes, let’s make our number one concern about Target be the accessibility of a Gem car to the store. Ironic comments indeed within a “Save the Planet” posting. Over consumtion, keeping up with Joneses, large carbon footprint …hello? Any of this ringing a bell?
Yes, let’s make our number one concern about Target be the accessibility of a Gem car to the store. Ironic comments indeed within a “Save the Planet” posting. Over consumtion, keeping up with Joneses, large carbon footprint …hello? Any of this ringing a bell?
Yes, let’s make our number one concern about Target be the accessibility of a Gem car to the store. Ironic comments indeed within a “Save the Planet” posting. Over consumtion, keeping up with Joneses, large carbon footprint …hello? Any of this ringing a bell?
There seems to have been some confusion about my proposal with regards to the GEM cars. What I am suggesting is that there is a network intact already that we can utilize. I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
There seems to have been some confusion about my proposal with regards to the GEM cars. What I am suggesting is that there is a network intact already that we can utilize. I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
There seems to have been some confusion about my proposal with regards to the GEM cars. What I am suggesting is that there is a network intact already that we can utilize. I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
There seems to have been some confusion about my proposal with regards to the GEM cars. What I am suggesting is that there is a network intact already that we can utilize. I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
That may be what you’re suggesting but that is not what you said. You said greenbelts should be expanded/strips widened to accommodate GEM cars. It’s neither necessary nor likely GEM car drivers would use greenbelt paths, except perhaps to cross from one street to another or to cross a bridge. There is no confusion. You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.
Changes *are* necessary to accommodate GEM cars. Where speed limits are greater than 35 mph, GEM cars and bicycles would need to share an 8-foot lane if we want to support connectivity for GEM cars. Two examples are Second Street east of L and the Mace Blvd curve. Do you or do you not support shared GEM/bicycle lanes in those two locations or locations with speed limits >35 mph? In your last post, you state you do not support shared bicycle/NEV lanes. It would be contradictory to say changes are necessary and then not support those same changes on existing vehicular infrastructure where required. I myself am a cyclist and ride to Sacramento 3-5 times a week and a modest 2200-2500 miles/year. There is nothing to fear here.
I think the confusion is misuse of the term bike path and bike lane. A bike lane is directly adjacent to a vehicular travel lane. A bike path is a dedicated right of way path for bicycles and pedestrians, such as on the greenbelt.
Bottom line for me: bike paths no, except under certain circustances to aid interneighborhood connectivity, bike lanes yes, on streets greater than 35 mph (of which there are few). Everywhere else, likely not necessary.
I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
That may be what you’re suggesting but that is not what you said. You said greenbelts should be expanded/strips widened to accommodate GEM cars. It’s neither necessary nor likely GEM car drivers would use greenbelt paths, except perhaps to cross from one street to another or to cross a bridge. There is no confusion. You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.
Changes *are* necessary to accommodate GEM cars. Where speed limits are greater than 35 mph, GEM cars and bicycles would need to share an 8-foot lane if we want to support connectivity for GEM cars. Two examples are Second Street east of L and the Mace Blvd curve. Do you or do you not support shared GEM/bicycle lanes in those two locations or locations with speed limits >35 mph? In your last post, you state you do not support shared bicycle/NEV lanes. It would be contradictory to say changes are necessary and then not support those same changes on existing vehicular infrastructure where required. I myself am a cyclist and ride to Sacramento 3-5 times a week and a modest 2200-2500 miles/year. There is nothing to fear here.
I think the confusion is misuse of the term bike path and bike lane. A bike lane is directly adjacent to a vehicular travel lane. A bike path is a dedicated right of way path for bicycles and pedestrians, such as on the greenbelt.
Bottom line for me: bike paths no, except under certain circustances to aid interneighborhood connectivity, bike lanes yes, on streets greater than 35 mph (of which there are few). Everywhere else, likely not necessary.
I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
That may be what you’re suggesting but that is not what you said. You said greenbelts should be expanded/strips widened to accommodate GEM cars. It’s neither necessary nor likely GEM car drivers would use greenbelt paths, except perhaps to cross from one street to another or to cross a bridge. There is no confusion. You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.
Changes *are* necessary to accommodate GEM cars. Where speed limits are greater than 35 mph, GEM cars and bicycles would need to share an 8-foot lane if we want to support connectivity for GEM cars. Two examples are Second Street east of L and the Mace Blvd curve. Do you or do you not support shared GEM/bicycle lanes in those two locations or locations with speed limits >35 mph? In your last post, you state you do not support shared bicycle/NEV lanes. It would be contradictory to say changes are necessary and then not support those same changes on existing vehicular infrastructure where required. I myself am a cyclist and ride to Sacramento 3-5 times a week and a modest 2200-2500 miles/year. There is nothing to fear here.
I think the confusion is misuse of the term bike path and bike lane. A bike lane is directly adjacent to a vehicular travel lane. A bike path is a dedicated right of way path for bicycles and pedestrians, such as on the greenbelt.
Bottom line for me: bike paths no, except under certain circustances to aid interneighborhood connectivity, bike lanes yes, on streets greater than 35 mph (of which there are few). Everywhere else, likely not necessary.
I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes, but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well. That may require expansion and widening of the strips.
That may be what you’re suggesting but that is not what you said. You said greenbelts should be expanded/strips widened to accommodate GEM cars. It’s neither necessary nor likely GEM car drivers would use greenbelt paths, except perhaps to cross from one street to another or to cross a bridge. There is no confusion. You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.
Changes *are* necessary to accommodate GEM cars. Where speed limits are greater than 35 mph, GEM cars and bicycles would need to share an 8-foot lane if we want to support connectivity for GEM cars. Two examples are Second Street east of L and the Mace Blvd curve. Do you or do you not support shared GEM/bicycle lanes in those two locations or locations with speed limits >35 mph? In your last post, you state you do not support shared bicycle/NEV lanes. It would be contradictory to say changes are necessary and then not support those same changes on existing vehicular infrastructure where required. I myself am a cyclist and ride to Sacramento 3-5 times a week and a modest 2200-2500 miles/year. There is nothing to fear here.
I think the confusion is misuse of the term bike path and bike lane. A bike lane is directly adjacent to a vehicular travel lane. A bike path is a dedicated right of way path for bicycles and pedestrians, such as on the greenbelt.
Bottom line for me: bike paths no, except under certain circustances to aid interneighborhood connectivity, bike lanes yes, on streets greater than 35 mph (of which there are few). Everywhere else, likely not necessary.
as mike said, thinking globally is important
two quick things; first, how is Davis addressing global warming through housing developments for people to commute to work in Sacramento, or, even worse, the Bay Area?
say what you want about the University’s West Davis project, but, to the extent that it houses students and faculty, instead of requiring them to live in Woodland, West Sacramento, Sacramento . . . it is a green friendly project, at least in this respect
second, the US military, as a consequence of the bipartisan adoption of policies of . . . what do you call it? not preemptive warfare, because that would suggest that a prostrate Iraq was going to attack the US at some point in the future . . well, whatever you call it, the aggressive projection of force through wars of choice has resulted, according to Michael Klare, in the US military becoming a voracious consumer of oil, to the extent that future conflicts are on the verge of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, as the military contemplates future interventions in places like West Africa to ensure a stable oil supply
–Richard Estes
as mike said, thinking globally is important
two quick things; first, how is Davis addressing global warming through housing developments for people to commute to work in Sacramento, or, even worse, the Bay Area?
say what you want about the University’s West Davis project, but, to the extent that it houses students and faculty, instead of requiring them to live in Woodland, West Sacramento, Sacramento . . . it is a green friendly project, at least in this respect
second, the US military, as a consequence of the bipartisan adoption of policies of . . . what do you call it? not preemptive warfare, because that would suggest that a prostrate Iraq was going to attack the US at some point in the future . . well, whatever you call it, the aggressive projection of force through wars of choice has resulted, according to Michael Klare, in the US military becoming a voracious consumer of oil, to the extent that future conflicts are on the verge of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, as the military contemplates future interventions in places like West Africa to ensure a stable oil supply
–Richard Estes
as mike said, thinking globally is important
two quick things; first, how is Davis addressing global warming through housing developments for people to commute to work in Sacramento, or, even worse, the Bay Area?
say what you want about the University’s West Davis project, but, to the extent that it houses students and faculty, instead of requiring them to live in Woodland, West Sacramento, Sacramento . . . it is a green friendly project, at least in this respect
second, the US military, as a consequence of the bipartisan adoption of policies of . . . what do you call it? not preemptive warfare, because that would suggest that a prostrate Iraq was going to attack the US at some point in the future . . well, whatever you call it, the aggressive projection of force through wars of choice has resulted, according to Michael Klare, in the US military becoming a voracious consumer of oil, to the extent that future conflicts are on the verge of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, as the military contemplates future interventions in places like West Africa to ensure a stable oil supply
–Richard Estes
as mike said, thinking globally is important
two quick things; first, how is Davis addressing global warming through housing developments for people to commute to work in Sacramento, or, even worse, the Bay Area?
say what you want about the University’s West Davis project, but, to the extent that it houses students and faculty, instead of requiring them to live in Woodland, West Sacramento, Sacramento . . . it is a green friendly project, at least in this respect
second, the US military, as a consequence of the bipartisan adoption of policies of . . . what do you call it? not preemptive warfare, because that would suggest that a prostrate Iraq was going to attack the US at some point in the future . . well, whatever you call it, the aggressive projection of force through wars of choice has resulted, according to Michael Klare, in the US military becoming a voracious consumer of oil, to the extent that future conflicts are on the verge of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, as the military contemplates future interventions in places like West Africa to ensure a stable oil supply
–Richard Estes
“You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.”
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
“You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.”
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
“You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.”
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
“You’re promoting something without taking a position via my explanation below.”
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
This is a meaningless statement because it fails to acknowledge implementation issues, as I’ll explain below. Where would you encourage this? With a few exceptions, it’s not necessary and in the few locations where GEMs cannot currently drive we have existing infrastructure that can accommodate them at minimal cost. Let’s take Second Street, for example. We have bike lanes in the existing right of way that are a minimum of 8-feet wide. This happens to be the standard lane width for NEVs as defined by the state’s only NEV Transportation Plan in Lincoln. Since there is no space for a dedicated path on the north side of Second Street and the south side of Second encroaches perilously close to UP right of way, there is little to no opportunity for a dedicated path. So there is a fundamental conflict here with your statements:
1. “I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes,”
and
2. “but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well.”
and
3.”we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town”
How do you propose to resolve the Second Street situation? My position is a shared bicycle/NEV lane. What is yours? It’s one thing to make statements that are vague and sound good on the surface, but another to avoid taking a position when a specific conflict arises between points you’ve made.
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
This is a meaningless statement because it fails to acknowledge implementation issues, as I’ll explain below. Where would you encourage this? With a few exceptions, it’s not necessary and in the few locations where GEMs cannot currently drive we have existing infrastructure that can accommodate them at minimal cost. Let’s take Second Street, for example. We have bike lanes in the existing right of way that are a minimum of 8-feet wide. This happens to be the standard lane width for NEVs as defined by the state’s only NEV Transportation Plan in Lincoln. Since there is no space for a dedicated path on the north side of Second Street and the south side of Second encroaches perilously close to UP right of way, there is little to no opportunity for a dedicated path. So there is a fundamental conflict here with your statements:
1. “I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes,”
and
2. “but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well.”
and
3.”we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town”
How do you propose to resolve the Second Street situation? My position is a shared bicycle/NEV lane. What is yours? It’s one thing to make statements that are vague and sound good on the surface, but another to avoid taking a position when a specific conflict arises between points you’ve made.
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
This is a meaningless statement because it fails to acknowledge implementation issues, as I’ll explain below. Where would you encourage this? With a few exceptions, it’s not necessary and in the few locations where GEMs cannot currently drive we have existing infrastructure that can accommodate them at minimal cost. Let’s take Second Street, for example. We have bike lanes in the existing right of way that are a minimum of 8-feet wide. This happens to be the standard lane width for NEVs as defined by the state’s only NEV Transportation Plan in Lincoln. Since there is no space for a dedicated path on the north side of Second Street and the south side of Second encroaches perilously close to UP right of way, there is little to no opportunity for a dedicated path. So there is a fundamental conflict here with your statements:
1. “I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes,”
and
2. “but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well.”
and
3.”we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town”
How do you propose to resolve the Second Street situation? My position is a shared bicycle/NEV lane. What is yours? It’s one thing to make statements that are vague and sound good on the surface, but another to avoid taking a position when a specific conflict arises between points you’ve made.
I’m taking a position that we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town and discourage the use of fossil fuel cars for in town travel.
This is a meaningless statement because it fails to acknowledge implementation issues, as I’ll explain below. Where would you encourage this? With a few exceptions, it’s not necessary and in the few locations where GEMs cannot currently drive we have existing infrastructure that can accommodate them at minimal cost. Let’s take Second Street, for example. We have bike lanes in the existing right of way that are a minimum of 8-feet wide. This happens to be the standard lane width for NEVs as defined by the state’s only NEV Transportation Plan in Lincoln. Since there is no space for a dedicated path on the north side of Second Street and the south side of Second encroaches perilously close to UP right of way, there is little to no opportunity for a dedicated path. So there is a fundamental conflict here with your statements:
1. “I am not suggesting that GEM cars and bicycles ride in the same lanes,”
and
2. “but rather we accommodate changes where available to enable GEM cars to utilize the system as well.”
and
3.”we should create dedicated paths to facilitate and promote the use of GEM cars in town”
How do you propose to resolve the Second Street situation? My position is a shared bicycle/NEV lane. What is yours? It’s one thing to make statements that are vague and sound good on the surface, but another to avoid taking a position when a specific conflict arises between points you’ve made.
In addition to housing, I’d like to see solar panels on the library, city hall, etc, other city buildings, as well as solar panels to shade parking lots.
For homeowners, retrofitting solar panels doesn’t always make sense financially if you don’t know you’ll still be in the house in 15 years. Spreading out the initial investment over the time results in savings, but the initial cost is large to purchase and install the panels.
The city will have the long term “residence” in its properties to make the initial costs worthwhile.
In addition to housing, I’d like to see solar panels on the library, city hall, etc, other city buildings, as well as solar panels to shade parking lots.
For homeowners, retrofitting solar panels doesn’t always make sense financially if you don’t know you’ll still be in the house in 15 years. Spreading out the initial investment over the time results in savings, but the initial cost is large to purchase and install the panels.
The city will have the long term “residence” in its properties to make the initial costs worthwhile.
In addition to housing, I’d like to see solar panels on the library, city hall, etc, other city buildings, as well as solar panels to shade parking lots.
For homeowners, retrofitting solar panels doesn’t always make sense financially if you don’t know you’ll still be in the house in 15 years. Spreading out the initial investment over the time results in savings, but the initial cost is large to purchase and install the panels.
The city will have the long term “residence” in its properties to make the initial costs worthwhile.
In addition to housing, I’d like to see solar panels on the library, city hall, etc, other city buildings, as well as solar panels to shade parking lots.
For homeowners, retrofitting solar panels doesn’t always make sense financially if you don’t know you’ll still be in the house in 15 years. Spreading out the initial investment over the time results in savings, but the initial cost is large to purchase and install the panels.
The city will have the long term “residence” in its properties to make the initial costs worthwhile.
Assuming you want to use your solar panels for heating in the winter, here is the % of possible sunshine recorded for Sacramento.
Records from the last 46 years:
Jan: 48%
Feb: 65%
Mar: 74%
Apr: 82%
May: 90%
June: 94%
July: 97%
Aug: 96%
Sept: 93%
Oct: 86%
Nov: 66%
Dec: 49%
We have a solar panel on our store building, and it does provide some heating to one room for about six hours on sunny winter days. It cost about $2K for a panel about 8′ long. I have no idea how it pencils out with regard to the cost of natural gas to heat the room.
Assuming you want to use your solar panels for heating in the winter, here is the % of possible sunshine recorded for Sacramento.
Records from the last 46 years:
Jan: 48%
Feb: 65%
Mar: 74%
Apr: 82%
May: 90%
June: 94%
July: 97%
Aug: 96%
Sept: 93%
Oct: 86%
Nov: 66%
Dec: 49%
We have a solar panel on our store building, and it does provide some heating to one room for about six hours on sunny winter days. It cost about $2K for a panel about 8′ long. I have no idea how it pencils out with regard to the cost of natural gas to heat the room.
Assuming you want to use your solar panels for heating in the winter, here is the % of possible sunshine recorded for Sacramento.
Records from the last 46 years:
Jan: 48%
Feb: 65%
Mar: 74%
Apr: 82%
May: 90%
June: 94%
July: 97%
Aug: 96%
Sept: 93%
Oct: 86%
Nov: 66%
Dec: 49%
We have a solar panel on our store building, and it does provide some heating to one room for about six hours on sunny winter days. It cost about $2K for a panel about 8′ long. I have no idea how it pencils out with regard to the cost of natural gas to heat the room.
Assuming you want to use your solar panels for heating in the winter, here is the % of possible sunshine recorded for Sacramento.
Records from the last 46 years:
Jan: 48%
Feb: 65%
Mar: 74%
Apr: 82%
May: 90%
June: 94%
July: 97%
Aug: 96%
Sept: 93%
Oct: 86%
Nov: 66%
Dec: 49%
We have a solar panel on our store building, and it does provide some heating to one room for about six hours on sunny winter days. It cost about $2K for a panel about 8′ long. I have no idea how it pencils out with regard to the cost of natural gas to heat the room.
Brian: I don’t like your tone here. I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal. This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning. I don’t have expertise in that and do not wish to pretend to. However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Brian: I don’t like your tone here. I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal. This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning. I don’t have expertise in that and do not wish to pretend to. However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Brian: I don’t like your tone here. I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal. This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning. I don’t have expertise in that and do not wish to pretend to. However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Brian: I don’t like your tone here. I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal. This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning. I don’t have expertise in that and do not wish to pretend to. However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
“especially in a place like Davis where perhaps 90% of the days are sunny.”
…so the actual figure is 78.3%.
“especially in a place like Davis where perhaps 90% of the days are sunny.”
…so the actual figure is 78.3%.
“especially in a place like Davis where perhaps 90% of the days are sunny.”
…so the actual figure is 78.3%.
“especially in a place like Davis where perhaps 90% of the days are sunny.”
…so the actual figure is 78.3%.
“Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.”
Most obviously, the City of Davis in conjuction, perhaps, with TREEDavis should immediately begin a huge tree-planting program all over town. To not only create carbon sinks but to provide shade and generally help filter out pollution.
Also, the City Parks and Rec Department Tree Division under the supervision of Rob Cain ought to be reined in as far as its massive tree-hacking (no, not tree-trimming) program that’s been going on all over town for months now.
–Brian Kenyon
“Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.”
Most obviously, the City of Davis in conjuction, perhaps, with TREEDavis should immediately begin a huge tree-planting program all over town. To not only create carbon sinks but to provide shade and generally help filter out pollution.
Also, the City Parks and Rec Department Tree Division under the supervision of Rob Cain ought to be reined in as far as its massive tree-hacking (no, not tree-trimming) program that’s been going on all over town for months now.
–Brian Kenyon
“Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.”
Most obviously, the City of Davis in conjuction, perhaps, with TREEDavis should immediately begin a huge tree-planting program all over town. To not only create carbon sinks but to provide shade and generally help filter out pollution.
Also, the City Parks and Rec Department Tree Division under the supervision of Rob Cain ought to be reined in as far as its massive tree-hacking (no, not tree-trimming) program that’s been going on all over town for months now.
–Brian Kenyon
“Having smaller houses would (hopefully) also promote a higher greenery or open space-to-asphalt/development ratio than we currently have in most metropolitan areas (America should be looking at sustainable development ideas behind places like Village Homes). This would reduce the urban “heat island” effect, which has negative effects on local weather patterns and local ecosystems, and probably also contributes in some way to global warming.”
Most obviously, the City of Davis in conjuction, perhaps, with TREEDavis should immediately begin a huge tree-planting program all over town. To not only create carbon sinks but to provide shade and generally help filter out pollution.
Also, the City Parks and Rec Department Tree Division under the supervision of Rob Cain ought to be reined in as far as its massive tree-hacking (no, not tree-trimming) program that’s been going on all over town for months now.
–Brian Kenyon
Misinterpreting tone.
I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal.
Implementation follows policy.
This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning.
Not that complicated, though planning is necessary. Planning and policy go together (especially if you want dedicated NEV paths), then implementation.
However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Agreed. However, feasibility, possible planning/policy conflicts through specific examples, and implementation all need to be considered. My concern here is that you’re not considering them but then expect implementation regardless.
In your blog, your criticized the City for not ensuring GEM connectivity to the Target. I outlined the obstacles in place and what your opinion was on it. Considering you raised the subject, it stands to reason you would be open to dialogue on a subject about which you yourself raised a criticism.
Misinterpreting tone.
I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal.
Implementation follows policy.
This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning.
Not that complicated, though planning is necessary. Planning and policy go together (especially if you want dedicated NEV paths), then implementation.
However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Agreed. However, feasibility, possible planning/policy conflicts through specific examples, and implementation all need to be considered. My concern here is that you’re not considering them but then expect implementation regardless.
In your blog, your criticized the City for not ensuring GEM connectivity to the Target. I outlined the obstacles in place and what your opinion was on it. Considering you raised the subject, it stands to reason you would be open to dialogue on a subject about which you yourself raised a criticism.
Misinterpreting tone.
I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal.
Implementation follows policy.
This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning.
Not that complicated, though planning is necessary. Planning and policy go together (especially if you want dedicated NEV paths), then implementation.
However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Agreed. However, feasibility, possible planning/policy conflicts through specific examples, and implementation all need to be considered. My concern here is that you’re not considering them but then expect implementation regardless.
In your blog, your criticized the City for not ensuring GEM connectivity to the Target. I outlined the obstacles in place and what your opinion was on it. Considering you raised the subject, it stands to reason you would be open to dialogue on a subject about which you yourself raised a criticism.
Misinterpreting tone.
I am suggesting a principle that I would like to see implemented, I am not making a policy proposal.
Implementation follows policy.
This would be extremely complicated and require a large amount of planning.
Not that complicated, though planning is necessary. Planning and policy go together (especially if you want dedicated NEV paths), then implementation.
However, a huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced simply by switching our in-town driving habits. That is what I wish to promote.
Agreed. However, feasibility, possible planning/policy conflicts through specific examples, and implementation all need to be considered. My concern here is that you’re not considering them but then expect implementation regardless.
In your blog, your criticized the City for not ensuring GEM connectivity to the Target. I outlined the obstacles in place and what your opinion was on it. Considering you raised the subject, it stands to reason you would be open to dialogue on a subject about which you yourself raised a criticism.
Correction:
Should read “…and asked what your opinion was on it.”
Correction:
Should read “…and asked what your opinion was on it.”
Correction:
Should read “…and asked what your opinion was on it.”
Correction:
Should read “…and asked what your opinion was on it.”
A huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced if we stopped overconsuming.
But everyone here seems to be studiously ignoring that point. Gee, make sure the city is fitted so you can get your GEM cars everywhere–as WTF pointed out, drive those little suckers right down to Target and load up on goods made mostly in other countries. Gee, how much do you think shipping that stuff adds to our carbon footprint?
This discussion serves as a case in point: Not many in Davis are really willing to appreciably adjust their lifestyles to really reduce their carbon footprints.
A huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced if we stopped overconsuming.
But everyone here seems to be studiously ignoring that point. Gee, make sure the city is fitted so you can get your GEM cars everywhere–as WTF pointed out, drive those little suckers right down to Target and load up on goods made mostly in other countries. Gee, how much do you think shipping that stuff adds to our carbon footprint?
This discussion serves as a case in point: Not many in Davis are really willing to appreciably adjust their lifestyles to really reduce their carbon footprints.
A huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced if we stopped overconsuming.
But everyone here seems to be studiously ignoring that point. Gee, make sure the city is fitted so you can get your GEM cars everywhere–as WTF pointed out, drive those little suckers right down to Target and load up on goods made mostly in other countries. Gee, how much do you think shipping that stuff adds to our carbon footprint?
This discussion serves as a case in point: Not many in Davis are really willing to appreciably adjust their lifestyles to really reduce their carbon footprints.
A huge amount of the carbon footprint of this country could be reduced if we stopped overconsuming.
But everyone here seems to be studiously ignoring that point. Gee, make sure the city is fitted so you can get your GEM cars everywhere–as WTF pointed out, drive those little suckers right down to Target and load up on goods made mostly in other countries. Gee, how much do you think shipping that stuff adds to our carbon footprint?
This discussion serves as a case in point: Not many in Davis are really willing to appreciably adjust their lifestyles to really reduce their carbon footprints.
Brian:
In my opinion, one of the things I would like to do with this blog is raise ideas, have them discussed, and see if the policymakers are interesting in taking them up. I think there are ways to implement this goal which I think would be helpful. As several people have pointed out there are a number of aspects to consider. It is also possible that this is not the best way in which to achieve my goal of reducing the number of in-town car trips from fossil fuel burning engines.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
Brian:
In my opinion, one of the things I would like to do with this blog is raise ideas, have them discussed, and see if the policymakers are interesting in taking them up. I think there are ways to implement this goal which I think would be helpful. As several people have pointed out there are a number of aspects to consider. It is also possible that this is not the best way in which to achieve my goal of reducing the number of in-town car trips from fossil fuel burning engines.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
Brian:
In my opinion, one of the things I would like to do with this blog is raise ideas, have them discussed, and see if the policymakers are interesting in taking them up. I think there are ways to implement this goal which I think would be helpful. As several people have pointed out there are a number of aspects to consider. It is also possible that this is not the best way in which to achieve my goal of reducing the number of in-town car trips from fossil fuel burning engines.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
Brian:
In my opinion, one of the things I would like to do with this blog is raise ideas, have them discussed, and see if the policymakers are interesting in taking them up. I think there are ways to implement this goal which I think would be helpful. As several people have pointed out there are a number of aspects to consider. It is also possible that this is not the best way in which to achieve my goal of reducing the number of in-town car trips from fossil fuel burning engines.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
Anonymous 10:55:
I agree completely about overconsuming. I was opposed to Target. The question to me though is given Target and people’s consumption habits, would we prefer cleaner burning cars to do the multiple trip transportations? I think the answer is yes. That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.
Anonymous 10:55:
I agree completely about overconsuming. I was opposed to Target. The question to me though is given Target and people’s consumption habits, would we prefer cleaner burning cars to do the multiple trip transportations? I think the answer is yes. That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.
Anonymous 10:55:
I agree completely about overconsuming. I was opposed to Target. The question to me though is given Target and people’s consumption habits, would we prefer cleaner burning cars to do the multiple trip transportations? I think the answer is yes. That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.
Anonymous 10:55:
I agree completely about overconsuming. I was opposed to Target. The question to me though is given Target and people’s consumption habits, would we prefer cleaner burning cars to do the multiple trip transportations? I think the answer is yes. That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
I agree here. I’m having trouble visualizing your idea regarding dedicated access because I think a better incentive would be dedicated parking stalls closer to the buildings. Parking incentives downtown would be useful, too.
It doesn’t matter, really. We’re on the wrong track anyway. We should be looking at lifestyle mandates.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
I agree here. I’m having trouble visualizing your idea regarding dedicated access because I think a better incentive would be dedicated parking stalls closer to the buildings. Parking incentives downtown would be useful, too.
It doesn’t matter, really. We’re on the wrong track anyway. We should be looking at lifestyle mandates.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
I agree here. I’m having trouble visualizing your idea regarding dedicated access because I think a better incentive would be dedicated parking stalls closer to the buildings. Parking incentives downtown would be useful, too.
It doesn’t matter, really. We’re on the wrong track anyway. We should be looking at lifestyle mandates.
I would like to see shopping developments have dedicated gem car access to encourage people to use gem cars rather than other cars. One way to achieve that would be to have a dedicated path. I like the idea of the dedicated path because you could bypass traffic signals and that would save time even though you would be driving slower.
I agree here. I’m having trouble visualizing your idea regarding dedicated access because I think a better incentive would be dedicated parking stalls closer to the buildings. Parking incentives downtown would be useful, too.
It doesn’t matter, really. We’re on the wrong track anyway. We should be looking at lifestyle mandates.
Brian in Davis… IMAGINE!! is the first,absolutely essential step to changing the reality around us.
Brian in Davis… IMAGINE!! is the first,absolutely essential step to changing the reality around us.
Brian in Davis… IMAGINE!! is the first,absolutely essential step to changing the reality around us.
Brian in Davis… IMAGINE!! is the first,absolutely essential step to changing the reality around us.
DPD said: “That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
I hope you meant that “doesn’t mean we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
We have renewed our domain and web site for “Don’t Big Box Davis” because we’re still getting people contacting us (both email and phone) from other towns asking for information on how to fight big box and Targets from bullying their way into their towns. My husband and I will happily take the time to help others out with this nationwide epidemic.
DPD said: “That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
I hope you meant that “doesn’t mean we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
We have renewed our domain and web site for “Don’t Big Box Davis” because we’re still getting people contacting us (both email and phone) from other towns asking for information on how to fight big box and Targets from bullying their way into their towns. My husband and I will happily take the time to help others out with this nationwide epidemic.
DPD said: “That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
I hope you meant that “doesn’t mean we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
We have renewed our domain and web site for “Don’t Big Box Davis” because we’re still getting people contacting us (both email and phone) from other towns asking for information on how to fight big box and Targets from bullying their way into their towns. My husband and I will happily take the time to help others out with this nationwide epidemic.
DPD said: “That does mean, I think we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
I hope you meant that “doesn’t mean we should give up on opposition to big boxes and overconsumption.”
We have renewed our domain and web site for “Don’t Big Box Davis” because we’re still getting people contacting us (both email and phone) from other towns asking for information on how to fight big box and Targets from bullying their way into their towns. My husband and I will happily take the time to help others out with this nationwide epidemic.
Oops, thanks Deb, that kind of changes the meaning quite a bit. I very much think it is fool’s gold to bring in these big boxes. You do not generate the kind of revenue and economic development that you would if you were able to develop your own local business to fill those kinds of niches.
Oops, thanks Deb, that kind of changes the meaning quite a bit. I very much think it is fool’s gold to bring in these big boxes. You do not generate the kind of revenue and economic development that you would if you were able to develop your own local business to fill those kinds of niches.
Oops, thanks Deb, that kind of changes the meaning quite a bit. I very much think it is fool’s gold to bring in these big boxes. You do not generate the kind of revenue and economic development that you would if you were able to develop your own local business to fill those kinds of niches.
Oops, thanks Deb, that kind of changes the meaning quite a bit. I very much think it is fool’s gold to bring in these big boxes. You do not generate the kind of revenue and economic development that you would if you were able to develop your own local business to fill those kinds of niches.
i still don’t see the need to change much of anything to accomodate gems. several of my neighbors have them, and are able to drive all around town on the road with no problem. very few streets in town have speed limits over 35 mph, and the traffic in town is virtually nonexistent IMO, for all the talk about it. it doesn’t take more than 10 to 15 minutes at most to get from the furthest corner of town to the opposite side, even driving under the speed limit and hitting all the red lights (as often happens to me, for whatever reason).
setting aside charging stations and solar panel shades would be nice, though.
i still don’t see the need to change much of anything to accomodate gems. several of my neighbors have them, and are able to drive all around town on the road with no problem. very few streets in town have speed limits over 35 mph, and the traffic in town is virtually nonexistent IMO, for all the talk about it. it doesn’t take more than 10 to 15 minutes at most to get from the furthest corner of town to the opposite side, even driving under the speed limit and hitting all the red lights (as often happens to me, for whatever reason).
setting aside charging stations and solar panel shades would be nice, though.
i still don’t see the need to change much of anything to accomodate gems. several of my neighbors have them, and are able to drive all around town on the road with no problem. very few streets in town have speed limits over 35 mph, and the traffic in town is virtually nonexistent IMO, for all the talk about it. it doesn’t take more than 10 to 15 minutes at most to get from the furthest corner of town to the opposite side, even driving under the speed limit and hitting all the red lights (as often happens to me, for whatever reason).
setting aside charging stations and solar panel shades would be nice, though.
i still don’t see the need to change much of anything to accomodate gems. several of my neighbors have them, and are able to drive all around town on the road with no problem. very few streets in town have speed limits over 35 mph, and the traffic in town is virtually nonexistent IMO, for all the talk about it. it doesn’t take more than 10 to 15 minutes at most to get from the furthest corner of town to the opposite side, even driving under the speed limit and hitting all the red lights (as often happens to me, for whatever reason).
setting aside charging stations and solar panel shades would be nice, though.
I really don’t like the EV vehicles on the bike path idea. Where would biker’s go to avoid motorized vehicles? Would kids be really safe on the green belt with EVs around? I think that there would be a better option than this, but I did like your other suggestions.
I really don’t like the EV vehicles on the bike path idea. Where would biker’s go to avoid motorized vehicles? Would kids be really safe on the green belt with EVs around? I think that there would be a better option than this, but I did like your other suggestions.
I really don’t like the EV vehicles on the bike path idea. Where would biker’s go to avoid motorized vehicles? Would kids be really safe on the green belt with EVs around? I think that there would be a better option than this, but I did like your other suggestions.
I really don’t like the EV vehicles on the bike path idea. Where would biker’s go to avoid motorized vehicles? Would kids be really safe on the green belt with EVs around? I think that there would be a better option than this, but I did like your other suggestions.