https://cleantechnica.

com/2017/01/13/looking-to-shanghai-best-practices-for-
inspiring-a-transit-oriented-generation/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-
cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Tiffany Asham: I felt that the

article was spot on when it came to explaining how millennials and Generation Z
are getting into using public transportation verses private. I mostly think its
due to wanting to live in the city environment over anywhere else.

FK: I agree, millennials

have shown most interest in living within urban city areas. I just wonder if it
has more to do with financial reasons, and less on environmental factors.
Additionally, Generation X parents (many of them) moved to suburban areas to
raise families. They are not used to riding public transportation because it
was never accessible to them.

TA: Living somewhere like Manhattan wouldnt exactly point to financial

struggles, if anything, most millennials and Generation Z live there because its
the place to be, and its nowhere near cheap. Having a car would be
unnecessary in that environment and cost more than taking the bus or the
subway. If anything, those generations are helping the environment more and all
were doing is living modernly.

FK: Another point of the

article about trains not being fast enough may not be applicable to every urban
city. For example, New York City is not the same as Massachusetts. When riders
are becoming
discouraged to ride public transportation because cars are moving faster in
Boston, the complete opposite is happening in NYC.

TA: Thats why there are more studys and examples being thrown around in the
article as to which cities need public transportation. Massachusetts 30 years ago
probably didnt find it necessary but with more students (Millennials and
Generation Z) going to college in that area, its bound to be looked at by the
Department of Transportation. It will cost a lot of money to build but the pros are
far greater like more people migrating to the city which also promotes businesses
to grow.

FK: I take the bus from my

home to NYC almost every week day. If I were to drive into NYC I would get
there in about half the time of the bus. I take the bus because parking and
toll is expensive, not because I'm trying to save the environment. With this
being said all factors needs to be considered. Now if a train ran from my home
to NYC the following would in fact have to ALL be true for me to ride it:

1. It must be faster than

the bus.

2. It must have a lower

fare than the bus.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/13/good-science-tells-story-well-written-
research-greatest-impact/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-
cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

FK: I have never thought about research in this way, but after reading this article I
totally agree and understand. What is the point of making great new discoveries
if no one will be willing to hear what it is. Making an article appeal to all
audiences will in fact be more beneficial than if written to a certain group. This
may not apply to all types of writing, but for science this is necessary.

TA: I completely agree. Most of the people who write about scholarly findings are
bound to be PHD students and are still under the impression that whoever reads
their work will have some knowledge on the subject. Another reason might be
because they may sound silly dumbing down whatever theyre researching
about because it will lead to them not being taken as seriously.

FK: Another problem with scientific writing is the use of acronyms. These days
acronyms can be ambiguous terms, so maybe it's best to spell it out (at least the
first time). I can't read something I do not understand, and if I have to do extra
research on a research article then I'm probably going to look for another that
doesn't require this.

TA: Its just like how I deal with speaking in engineering terms with my
colleagues, I may know what theyre talking about but when I try to explain what I
do at work with a family member or friend its difficult to find similar words to meet
the subject of what Im speaking about. I always end up drawing the picture of
the type of design work I usually do.

FK: At this day and age an audience prefers for something to be straight to the
point. Additionally, they prefer if the article "sounds" like them. By this I mean the
choice of language has to be familiar. Traditionally, technical writings have a
standard "old" language, but all this must change and adapt to new ways in order
to survive.

TA: Everyone who writes about these findings or articles believes that they will
know what theyre talking about prior to reading it or have a higher education to
know such acronyms or syllables that typically arent used on a regular basis. Its
bound to change with time, then again its sort of expected for them to use old
language to either earned their PhD or to sound intellectual with their colleagues
who already know about the subject.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/12/10000-volkswagen-diesel-vehicle-owners-
uk-suing-company-scandal/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-
cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

FK: This is the perfect example of why I have trust issues when ready to trade
large amounts of money for an item of need. How can such a large company that
people trust (or trusted at this point) cheat and deceive their customers.

TA: its amazing will companies think they can get away with now whether there
doing budget cuts and dont expect their customers to know the quality of their
products or its pure competition to get ahead of the game by lying.

FK: "A rep for Volkswagen publicly commented on the matter, stating that the
company didnt believe customers were negatively affected by the issue, and that
it would robustly defend itself." In my opinion this means, yes we lied, but did it
kill you? They must take ownership of lying to customers and pay necessary
dues. I hope the UK court system can get it together and start legal proceedings.
I wonder why they are moving slow with this matter?

TA: Anything involving law usually takes time. The basic argument is that they
didnt provide anything unsafe or anything to be concerned about but they knew
the consequences if they lied to their customers. Once one lawsuit happened, Im
sure thousands of other people joined the march because they knew they would
be getting money out of a multimillion dollar company even though it probably
wasnt that serious enough for them to be upset about in the first place.

FK: I did a quick google search for supplementary information on this issue, and I
am surprised to see what I did. The following article
states that VW was the #1 automaker in 2016. Seems as though they were more
concerned with being on top and would do it by any means
necessary. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/01/30/its-official-
volkswagen-worlds-largest-automaker-2016-or-maybe-toyota/#27fa52d920ba
This next article shows a recall for 600,000 vehicles in the US because of a
defect. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/audi-vw-recall/. Seems as though their
troubles are endless, but they caused it on themselves.

TA: Competing with companies like Honda or Toyota was a journey for them Im
sure, once people get attached to something that they know is reliable, its really
difficult for them to switch to something else especially with cars since theyre
dealing with parts, manufactures and warranty etc. In the end, they got their
name out there, made it to top and now theyre back on the bottom for a silly lie.