Multiple rumors are pointing to a pricier than usual next-gen iPhone coming this year, and one of the reasons for Apple's hotly tipped anniversary edition iPhone price hike could be the difficulty ...the company is facing with 3D Touch. Chinese newspaper the Economic Daily News has info from sources at TPK Holdings, the company which currently supplies 3D Touch sensors to Apple. It claims the price of those sensors will rise for the iPhone 8--to around $18 to $22 each, compared to $7 to $8 in the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. This is apparently due to the complexity of attaching them to the AMOLED display the iPhone 8 is tipped to feature--bonding to LCD displays in previous models is easier. The source goes on to claim Apple is willing to absorb the cost rather than pass it on to consumers.
Since its initiation in the early 20th century, the federal surface transportation program has focused on highway construction and continues to do so to this day. However, over the past three ...decades, views of non-motorized modes and of federal interest in promoting them have changed dramatically. As is now widely recognized, a shift from motorized to non-motorized modes could produce abundant environmental benefits, including less air pollution, less water pollution, less noise, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Economic benefits could come from reduced household spending on transportation, given the low cost of non-motorized modes. Non-motorized modes could also improve equity of access to jobs, healthcare, services, and other activities, especially for low-income households, the young, the elderly, and the disabled, who have more limited access to cars. Pedestrian infrastructure is also an essential component of an effective public transportation network. The public health community has raised awareness that “active travel†helps individuals meet recommended levels of physical activity, with significant benefits for health, as well as reductions in health care costs. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is increasingly recognized as a critical component of a safe and efficient transportation system. Such benefits have provided justification for a national interest in funding for bicycle and pedestrian (bike/ped) infrastructure, such as sidewalks, safe pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, shared-use trails and bridges, and bicycle parking facilities. Provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) led to a dramatic increase in federal funding available for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998, continued this trend, with the result that spending went from less than $7 million per year before ISTEA to over $400 million annually by 2003; over the six-year life of TEA-21, more than $1.4 billion was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, more than twice what was spent in the six previous years under ISTEA (Ernst, 2004). The latest federal transportation bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, signed into law in August 2005 and set to expire in 2009, offered the potential for an even more dramatic increase in federal transportation spending on bicycling and walking to more than $4 billion over the life of the bill. However, while Congress made it possible to spend federal funding on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, it did not mandate spending on these transportation modes. Instead, the decision to spend this money is made by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in metropolitan areas of over fifty thousand and by state departments of transportation (DOTs) inside and outside of metropolitan areas. This raises several questions. * To what degree have MPOs and local governments taken advantage of the opportunity to invest in bike/ped infrastructure? * What factors explain the variation in bike/ped investments across MPOs? * Has federal support for bike/ped infrastructure led to increased attention to these modes throughout the transportation planning process? * Have bike/ped investments stimulated by federal funding had a positive impact on walking and bicycling? With the next federal transportation authorization bill now under consideration, as well as tens of billions of dollars in transportation funding as a part of an economic stimulus program, understanding the efficacy of federal funding for non-motorized modes is of critical importance. This paper explores these questions through an analysis of patterns of spending of federal funds across metropolitan regions, in-depth case studies of policies and projects in two metropolitan regions, Sacramento, California and Baltimore, Maryland, and an analysis of the impact of these investments on bicycling and walking behavior.
Since its initiation in the early 20th century, the federal transportation funding program has focused on highway construction for automobile travel. In the last few decades, public transportation ...has received 20% of federal resources, a significant share, but non-motorized modes such as bicycling and walking have historically received very limited funding. Over the past three decades, however, views of non-motorized modes and the federal interest in promoting them have changed dramatically. It is now widely recognized that a shift from motorized to non-motorized modes would produce abundant environmental benefits, including less air pollution, less water pollution, less noise, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The low cost of non-motorized modes generates economic benefits from reduced household spending on transportation. Non-motorized modes could also improve equity of access to jobs, healthcare, services, and other activities, especially for youth, people with disabilities, and low-income households with more limited access to cars. The public health community has raised awareness that “active travel†helps individuals meet recommended levels of physical activity, with significant benefits for health, as well as reductions in health care costs. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is increasingly recognized as a critical component of a safe and efficient transportation system, and pedestrian infrastructure is an essential component of an effective public transportation network.
Since its initiation in the early 20th century, the federal transportation funding program has focused on highway construction for automobile travel. In the last few decades, public transportation ...has received 20% of federal resources, a significant share, but non-motorized modes such as bicycling and walking have historically received very limited funding. Over the past three decades, however, views of non-motorized modes and the federal interest in promoting them have changed dramatically. It is now widely recognized that a shift from motorized to non-motorized modes would produce abundant environmental benefits, including less air pollution, less water pollution, less noise, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The low cost of non-motorized modes generates economic benefits from reduced household spending on transportation. Non-motorized modes could also improve equity of access to jobs, healthcare, services, and other activities, especially for youth, people with disabilities, and low-income households with more limited access to cars. The public health community has raised awareness that âeurooeactive travelâeuro helps individuals meet recommended levels of physical activity, with significant benefits for health, as well as reductions in health care costs. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is increasingly recognized as a critical component of a safe and efficient transportation system, and pedestrian infrastructure is an essential component of an effective public transportation network.
Since its initiation in the early 20th century, the federal surface transportation program has focused on highway construction and continues to do so to this day. However, over the past three ...decades, views of non-motorized modes and of federal interest in promoting them have changed dramatically. As is now widely recognized, a shift from motorized to non-motorized modes could produce abundant environmental benefits, including less air pollution, less water pollution, less noise, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Economic benefits could come from reduced household spending on transportation, given the low cost of non-motorized modes. Non-motorized modes could also improve equity of access to jobs, healthcare, services, and other activities, especially for low-income households, the young, the elderly, and the disabled, who have more limited access to cars. Pedestrian infrastructure is also an essential component of an effective public transportation network. The public health community has raised awareness that âeurooeactive travelâeuro helps individuals meet recommended levels of physical activity, with significant benefits for health, as well as reductions in health care costs. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is increasingly recognized as a critical component of a safe and efficient transportation system. Such benefits have provided justification for a national interest in funding for bicycle and pedestrian (bike/ped) infrastructure, such as sidewalks, safe pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, shared-use trails and bridges, and bicycle parking facilities. Provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) led to a dramatic increase in federal funding available for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), passed in 1998, continued this trend, with the result that spending went from less than $7 million per year before ISTEA to over $400 million annually by 2003; over the six-year life of TEA-21, more than $1.4 billion was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, more than twice what was spent in the six previous years under ISTEA (Ernst, 2004). The latest federal transportation bill, known as SAFETEA-LU, signed into law in August 2005 and set to expire in 2009, offered the potential for an even more dramatic increase in federal transportation spending on bicycling and walking to more than $4 billion over the life of the bill. However, while Congress made it possible to spend federal funding on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, it did not mandate spending on these transportation modes. Instead, the decision to spend this money is made by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in metropolitan areas of over fifty thousand and by state departments of transportation (DOTs) inside and outside of metropolitan areas. This raises several questions. * To what degree have MPOs and local governments taken advantage of the opportunity to invest in bike/ped infrastructure? * What factors explain the variation in bike/ped investments across MPOs? * Has federal support for bike/ped infrastructure led to increased attention to these modes throughout the transportation planning process? * Have bike/ped investments stimulated by federal funding had a positive impact on walking and bicycling? With the next federal transportation authorization bill now under consideration, as well as tens of billions of dollars in transportation funding as a part of an economic stimulus program, understanding the efficacy of federal funding for non-motorized modes is of critical importance. This paper explores these questions through an analysis of patterns of spending of federal funds across metropolitan regions, in-depth case studies of policies and projects in two metropolitan regions, Sacramento, California and Baltimore, Maryland, and an analysis of the impact of these investments on bicycling and walking behavior.
Double jeopardy: motherwork and the law Turnbull, Lorna; Gallant, Michelle; McCann, Deidre
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law,
07/2003, Letnik:
15, Številka:
2
Book Review
BRITISH COLUMBIA WETLANDS IMPERILED Stewart, Michelle; Newton-McCann, Amy; Slippery, J
Earth first! (1991),
02/1995, Letnik:
XV, Številka:
III
Magazine Article
The foundation for Burns Bog arose 5,000 years ago when sprouting rushes, cattails, and sedges consolidated the silt and sand surface of the ever-expanding Fraser River Delta. Within a thousand ...years, enough undecayed vegetation (called sedge peat) was in place to allow the growth of trees, shrubs such as sweet gale, hardhack, and later Labrador Tea and blueberries. These in turn firmed new layers (ericacious peat) comprising most of the 16-foot-high inverted organic saucer known as Burns Bog. Very recently the bog was capped with a foot or so thick mixture commercially termed "sphagnum peat," but really comprised of the remains of shrubs, trees, sedges, rushes, lichens, and various mosses including the over-rated Sphagnum. The common term "peat moss" is a misnomer. Burns Bog is by no means pristine, but it is wilderness. It is a unique ecosystem that must be formally protected and allowed to thrive and evolve in its natural state. Several environmental groups in BC, including the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Burns Bog Conservation Society, and BC Wild are involved in the provincial Protected Areas Strategy process and have submitted several wilderness proposals to BC Parks, Environment, and Lands. However, these proposals are incomplete--they would protect only relatively undisturbed portions of the bog. They also don't include a very important piece of Burns Bog which connects it to Boundary Bay, thus ignoring the entire wetlands complex. Vancouver EF! is focusing its attention on the Delta and Vancouver City Councils, pressuring them to enforce their own bylaws and protect the bog. The provincial government also must know that they can no longer override municipal bylaws and use Burns Bog as BC's dumping ground. As usual, direct action will be a strong focal point of this campaign. We need your help. Harass the bastards! Moe Sihota, BC Minister of Environment, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC V8V 1X4, Canada.
