basachs

Thanks Garris, this helps a lot. Thankfully, i dont need one but something to keep in the back of my mind if the need ever arises.

So having moved to Providence and god forbid need a hospital, which one is the one to go to? Which ones would you not go to?

Yep, my wife and I walk everywhere too. Put work into that equation and we would get rid of one of our cars for sure.

Definitely should be commited to the pedestrian infrastructure, but more importantly to the corporate infrastructure. So people have places to walk to! I would love to work in Providence and walk to work. Cotuit, you are very lucky.

Interesting, although not very detailed, article on the recevelopment of a toxic lot into a pedestrian/sculpture park in Seattle. The concept seems rather suited to Providence, around the port area, or the new land freed up by the I-195 project. Plus we have a lot of sculptures hanging aorund, and it would be nice for additional space for this. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/02/13/seatt...k.ap/index.html

I am assuming that some of us are getting confused with which part of westminster is being discussed. Armory vs Downcity Westminster. Since the topic heading includes "west-end neighborhoods" I assumed she was talking armory. But reading the OP, seemes more likely downcity westminster. My rec would be downcity based on your needs and wants.

Yes, where the hell is the close box on this thing?!!

Thats why I said almost all. I still stand by my opinion. Just as you have seen the proof of dog walkers who do not pick up after their dogs, I have never seen the proof that soccer player's pick up after themselves. It would be typical of providence to install something low on the list while the rest of the infrastructure is crumbling around it. I am glad that Alix Ogden's remark about soccer fields was in response to a "sky's the limit" question. That indicates that she understands that she needs to fix the existing, before moving on to the easy win of creating soccer fields.

Hmm. I do actually use a park. I use the park four or five times day walking my dog. Now I can only speak for Dexter Park as that is the park I use. But, a lot of people actually use the park in this way too. I pick up after my dog, and a lot of other people. In fact I bought a pair of gloves expressly for this purpose. I am a one main chain gang, picking up litter. Obviously I feel a sense of ownership for the park. My dog loves it and so do I. And I dont need soccer fields to feel this way. A lot of people walk their dog in Dexter Park and almost all of them pick up after themselves and pick up other people's litter. Soccer is also played in the park during the warm months with makeshifts goals made by the players. They almost never pick up after themselves. T-shirts, gatorade bottles and other stuff is routinely left. Plus, the area where they play is totally worn down to the dirt. I highly doubt that making a real field is going to magically change they way a lot of the soccer player's treat their park. Trash will just be left on nicer fields. Dexter park also has a nice playground, used everyday by neighborhood kids. The kids and their parents pick up better than the soccer player's. They care about their playground. Nothing in the park is maintained properly by the city. Yet there are groups of users who care enough to maintain it for themselves and others. There are also a group of users who do not. Rewarding them with better fields is fine, maybe they will care more. But the people who do use the park and care about it should be rewarded with a better maintained playground and a nice dog park once the legalities are worked out before putting up soccer fields. Alright, rant over.

I dont have a problem with soccer facilities if it is added after making sure there is enough budget to clean the parks, maintain the lights and plant grass where the current grass has become scraggly. Soccer facilities should seriously be one of the last things the parks department invests in. How about maintaining what you have already!

okay. The article was scant on details. I dont purport to be well versed in energy transfer. My mental model of how it would work is that it would not cause the car to expel more energy to activate that mechanism. I am sure a lot of people reading that article would also think of it that way. That a car going 35mph or whatever just goes right over it. The mechanism does not really have enough resistance to cause the car to slow down at all. Thanks for the info.

Would that matter though? I mean the cars would be driving anyway, may as well capture that. At least that was how I saw the reasoning behind the invention.