My regular commute is from Sunnyvale to Stanford. Foothill Expressway is the logical bike option. It is fairly fast, few lights, and takes about 40 minutes. (My best time was 35 - but it was primarily due to hitting green lights.) The biggest challenge is Page Mill. Its probably the steepest climb, and near the end of the ride. Powering up can be the difference between a momentum sapping 2 minute wait and a clear cruise on in to work.
However, the same route gets boring. So there is El Camino. Distance is about the same. There are still the challenges of beating the lights. However, most lights seem to run on shorter cycles (except for that Castro run that seems to run much longer than it needs to.) It is the much more urban alternative. [ughh... What is with this mouse that loves to suddenly send me back a page...]
Then there is the 'inner passage'. Winding primarily through the streets of Los Altos, and never hitting Page Mill or El Camino. Also taking advantage of the bike path for Los Altos to Arastradero and the Bol Park to Hannover path. There are plenty of variations of quiet streets and bike shortcuts to go on this slow, meandering way. It is nice when there is just not much of hurry, and no desire to go fast.
But sometimes, it is nice to mix in a few small hills. The outer passage goes through Los Altos Hills on the outside of foothill, mostly between foothill and 280. One variation of this is the 'follow Fremont'. It gets cut off a couple times in Los Altos, though it is fairly obvious where it should go. However, it ends near downtown Los Altos, and then a Fremont starts up not to far away in Los Altos Hills, and goes until it becomes Hillview. Is this the same road? It sure seems like it, though the obvious connection point seems to be buried in a big valley where Fremont dead-ends.
Though sometimes, the simple outer passage is not enough, and the desire for hills takes over. Thus, the swing to the other side of 280. It is possible to travel entirely between 280 and Skyline, sneaking around past the quarry, and on down to Page Mill or Alpine. Some nice hills, and a low-traffic ride. Though the shortcut through Rancho San Antonio has one of the scariest descents I have been on. The road (which I think is just a trail now) is in poor condition, with a very steep grade. It may be fun to climb, but not to go down - even with no other traffic to worry about.
But hey, there are even more hills out there. The Page Mill to Montebello route manages to totally avoid civilization. However, the entrance to Montebello from Page Mill seems to be blocked by a fence. Ugh! Thus a ride on a dirt trail for a while before getting to the unpaved old road, before getting to the paved road for the descent. After climbing Page Mill in the hot sun, and then descending Montebello in the shade, I realized this would have been a much better morning ride. Though I'll probably try out skyline next. And I suppose after skyline, I'd eventually get to the coastal route.
There is also the other direction to go. Middle passage goes down Park Avenue, eventually to California and Dana/Washington. It may also include the bike path from the Palo Alto Caltrain to Palo Alto High. This is between caltrain and El Camino the whole way. Low traffic, some annoying lights (especially on California) and fairly good biking. There are also some routes on the other side of Caltrain (bryant-central, middlefield) but I haven't tried them yet.
I have gone way out to the other side of 101. There is the bayshore route which pretty much hugs 101 the whole way. Fairly fast, not too pleasant. Even further out is the bay route. From East Palo Alto to Palo Alto baylands to Mountain View Shoreline to Stevens Creek trail. Lots of trail riding (paved and unpaved) with few stops, and not too many others on the trail. (Simple formula: number of people on trail inversely proportional to distance from parking lot) It almost seems odd to be keeping a steady pace. It is also interesting to look at Shoreline and Moffett from the outside. They look like big tents stuck out in the mud.
Then last week I decided to go just a little further, and journey around the other side of the bay. So, over the dumbarton bridge I went, making it through the gusty crosswinds. Then it was down the other side of the bay through Newark and Fremont, and down to Milpitas. (Though Dixon landing road could use some help. It is only accessible via an 880 overpass. On the overpass, bikes are best in the middle lane (because the two other lanes get on the freeway). However, there is no bike lane there. Just past the overpass, there is a bike lane on the right. It seems anybody that could manage that overpass probably does not have a need for a 50 yard bike lane instructing them to stay right.) In Milpitas there was a nice little path going through farmland that links up with a very poor path going along 237. Then it was to Tasman on to Sunnyvale. (I had considered taking light rail in the event that I was running late. However, the light rail was traveling just about the same pace I was. It even got stuck in traffic as I did [planners wouldn't dare give it priority in such a car dominated area!]) Then it is back down Fair Oaks in to the heart of Sunnyvale.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
Mary avenue overpass
There has been a lot of angst recently over a proposed Mary avenue overpass over 101 and 237. People living on or near Mary claim that it will destroy their community. They have formed community organizations and signed petitions protesting this. They have even created proposals to expand other roads and intersections and roads as an alternative to this overpass.
Unfortunately, they are missing the forest for the trees.
The core problem is that there is that the vast Moffett Park office park area in Northern Sunnyvale is virtually inaccessible without a car. By zoning design, there are no residences in the area. Even retail is for the most part absent. The Mathilda freeway intersection is a disaster, scaring off all but the most hard-core cyclists. The sidewalk network is incomplete requiring circuitous routes across dangerous intersections by pedestrians. There is a light rail running through the area, but the incomplete sidewalk network and multi-lane arterials can result in a half mile walk just to get to a building across the street. (And the streets are often faced by large parking lots making it more of a challenge.) The light rail also only runs through northern Sunnyvale down to San Jose. Somebody far away in south San Jose can take the train, while somebody in southern Sunnyvale is out of luck with transit.
If people really want to 'preserve community' and reduce traffic on Mary, the simple solution is to reduce the available supply of traffic lanes, while also increasing the connectivity of the system. Reducing supply will make it less convenient to make short car trips - while encouraging other means of travel. Increasing the connectivity will reduce trip lengths, thereby reducing aggregate travel distance. Shorter trip lengths and greater network connectivity will also encourage more biking and walking.
A simple solution to the Mary Avenue issue: build the bridge. Give it two car lanes, two bike lanes, and two sidewalks. But before doing so, extending the bike lane from Homestead to Maude, reducing car traffic lanes to one in each direction. This will allow for local connectivity, as well as providing the first safe Sunnyvale bike route to Moffett Park. It will also provide a good bike route from all of Sunnyvale (and even Cupertino once the 280 bridge is complete.) The reduction in traffic lanes will reduce the value of the road as an out-of-town short cut.
Even better from a long-term perspective would be an overhaul of the zoning regulations in Sunnyvale. With the city requiring all single-family homes to have 4 off-street parking spaces, is there any wonder why people drive so much. (Add to this the insistence on preserving additional on-street parking, and you get about 7 or 8 parking spaces per house - enough space for an additional house!) And these housing units are often built in housing ghettos, separated from arterials with 'great walls', and far isolated from commercials and retail areas.
Unfortunately, they are missing the forest for the trees.
The core problem is that there is that the vast Moffett Park office park area in Northern Sunnyvale is virtually inaccessible without a car. By zoning design, there are no residences in the area. Even retail is for the most part absent. The Mathilda freeway intersection is a disaster, scaring off all but the most hard-core cyclists. The sidewalk network is incomplete requiring circuitous routes across dangerous intersections by pedestrians. There is a light rail running through the area, but the incomplete sidewalk network and multi-lane arterials can result in a half mile walk just to get to a building across the street. (And the streets are often faced by large parking lots making it more of a challenge.) The light rail also only runs through northern Sunnyvale down to San Jose. Somebody far away in south San Jose can take the train, while somebody in southern Sunnyvale is out of luck with transit.
If people really want to 'preserve community' and reduce traffic on Mary, the simple solution is to reduce the available supply of traffic lanes, while also increasing the connectivity of the system. Reducing supply will make it less convenient to make short car trips - while encouraging other means of travel. Increasing the connectivity will reduce trip lengths, thereby reducing aggregate travel distance. Shorter trip lengths and greater network connectivity will also encourage more biking and walking.
A simple solution to the Mary Avenue issue: build the bridge. Give it two car lanes, two bike lanes, and two sidewalks. But before doing so, extending the bike lane from Homestead to Maude, reducing car traffic lanes to one in each direction. This will allow for local connectivity, as well as providing the first safe Sunnyvale bike route to Moffett Park. It will also provide a good bike route from all of Sunnyvale (and even Cupertino once the 280 bridge is complete.) The reduction in traffic lanes will reduce the value of the road as an out-of-town short cut.
Even better from a long-term perspective would be an overhaul of the zoning regulations in Sunnyvale. With the city requiring all single-family homes to have 4 off-street parking spaces, is there any wonder why people drive so much. (Add to this the insistence on preserving additional on-street parking, and you get about 7 or 8 parking spaces per house - enough space for an additional house!) And these housing units are often built in housing ghettos, separated from arterials with 'great walls', and far isolated from commercials and retail areas.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
On Food and Iraq
I just finished a couple of books. Morgan Spurlock's Don't Eat this Book and Peter W. Galbraith's End of Iraq. Both skewed left, though had very different styles.
Don't Eat This Book was a one sided attack on McDonalds (and fast food in general). It was written in a very casual style, with a lot of "stream of conscious" commentary. The style was interesting at first, but soon grew tiring. Though there were plenty of factoids and anecdotes, the book was so one-sided, it almost begged for a response from McDonalds to form a true balanced picture. It felt similar to the "objective" one-sidedness of O'Reilly and Fox News.
End of Iraq is also driven by the author's personal experiences, though it is done in a more balanced, formal way. It presents many first hand stories from the Saddam era of Iraq as well as the US occupation. It does a good job of pointing out the positives as well as the negatives. (One observation was striking - most [other than Sunnis] are now better off than they were under Saddam; However, the US is worse off - due to the driving up of radical Muslim insurgents, strengthening of Iran and poor image on the world theater). The basic thesis is that the Bush administration was extremely arrogant [hmm... typical Texans!], and just by listening to some of the local people and area experts, they could have had a successful middle-east experience. He also presents alternatives for the success in the future - essentially allowing Iraqis to do what they want, even if that means a partition of the country with an Iran-leaning Shiite theocracy in the oil-rich south. The focus is primarily on Iraq and the Iraqis, with little attention given to the external 'needs' of the US. (After all, wasn't the war about 'Iraqi Freedom', rather than US oil.) No mention was made of the macroeconomic costs of oil and other factors critical to Americans. However, these were not missed. Overall, it was a very well written book.
Don't Eat This Book was a one sided attack on McDonalds (and fast food in general). It was written in a very casual style, with a lot of "stream of conscious" commentary. The style was interesting at first, but soon grew tiring. Though there were plenty of factoids and anecdotes, the book was so one-sided, it almost begged for a response from McDonalds to form a true balanced picture. It felt similar to the "objective" one-sidedness of O'Reilly and Fox News.
End of Iraq is also driven by the author's personal experiences, though it is done in a more balanced, formal way. It presents many first hand stories from the Saddam era of Iraq as well as the US occupation. It does a good job of pointing out the positives as well as the negatives. (One observation was striking - most [other than Sunnis] are now better off than they were under Saddam; However, the US is worse off - due to the driving up of radical Muslim insurgents, strengthening of Iran and poor image on the world theater). The basic thesis is that the Bush administration was extremely arrogant [hmm... typical Texans!], and just by listening to some of the local people and area experts, they could have had a successful middle-east experience. He also presents alternatives for the success in the future - essentially allowing Iraqis to do what they want, even if that means a partition of the country with an Iran-leaning Shiite theocracy in the oil-rich south. The focus is primarily on Iraq and the Iraqis, with little attention given to the external 'needs' of the US. (After all, wasn't the war about 'Iraqi Freedom', rather than US oil.) No mention was made of the macroeconomic costs of oil and other factors critical to Americans. However, these were not missed. Overall, it was a very well written book.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Stolen Specialized Globe and a new Breezer Bike
On my first day at work at Stanford, my bike was stolen (sniff sniff). My 2005 Specialized Globe had a few thousand miles on it and was showing its age. The fenders were beat up and in need of replacement, and the drive train and bottom bracket just about had it, but it was my baby. I guess that's what I got for parking it outside with only a cable lock in a "bike heavy zone".
Since I was looking at getting a lot of repair work done, in some ways it is a bittersweet loss. (If it had happened after I'd sunk another $500 in to the bike, then I would have been really mad). It was also annoying to use the Chariot and Trail-a-bike attachments, as well as the Dynamo light, and nice rack and paniers - and the bungie cords in there. At least I remembered to remove the GPS.
It did accelerate my decision to buy a Breezer folding bike. I was amazed at how well it runs. (It has been fun to keep up with and even pass guys on their super fancy road bikes.) However, it is kid of annoying folding up the bike and bringing it inside. Lack of storage capacity is also an issue. (A rack is a possibility, but getting the bags on top of it could be a pain.) It was nice that Stanford had the $100 promotion for the bike.
After seeing it missing, I've filed the police report and scoured the campus. No sign of my bike, but I did notice someone else with the same model of Globe. Dark blue and all, though in much better condition than mine. I'll miss that bike.
Since I was looking at getting a lot of repair work done, in some ways it is a bittersweet loss. (If it had happened after I'd sunk another $500 in to the bike, then I would have been really mad). It was also annoying to use the Chariot and Trail-a-bike attachments, as well as the Dynamo light, and nice rack and paniers - and the bungie cords in there. At least I remembered to remove the GPS.
It did accelerate my decision to buy a Breezer folding bike. I was amazed at how well it runs. (It has been fun to keep up with and even pass guys on their super fancy road bikes.) However, it is kid of annoying folding up the bike and bringing it inside. Lack of storage capacity is also an issue. (A rack is a possibility, but getting the bags on top of it could be a pain.) It was nice that Stanford had the $100 promotion for the bike.
After seeing it missing, I've filed the police report and scoured the campus. No sign of my bike, but I did notice someone else with the same model of Globe. Dark blue and all, though in much better condition than mine. I'll miss that bike.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Missed opportunity for eco-friendly garage
The Mountain View Voice had an interesting little article about a new parking garage in downtown Mountain View. It has architectural flourishes to blend in nicely with the neighborhood, along with eco-friendly solar panels. Only one catch - the garage provides free parking. Thus it becomes a giant subsidy for people to drive and park downtown. The possible savings in the solar panels are easily consumed by the increased traffic.
Mountain View currently has a nice suburban downtown that is fairly pedestrian friendly, and contains a large amount of free on-street parking. Local downtown residents are more likely to walk to the other downtown restaurants and attractions. Many of the other visitors are likely within a short bike ride of the area. However, bicycle facilities are significantly absent. Bike racks are extremely hard to come by on Castro street, and the narrow lanes with significant street parking make riding a bike an advanced obstacle course journey. Spending the money to improve the bike-friendliness of the area may help to provide access for the same number of people without creating additional traffic in the area.
In addition, pedestrian improvements could be made. From north of the railroad tracks, the only real pedestrian access point is at Castro. This crossing includes a grade crossing of Central Expressway and the Caltrain tracks. If you happen to be on the wrong side of the street when a train comes, the light cycle could lead to a 5-10 minute wait. There are overcrossings at the Stevens Creek Trail and Shoreline, however, these require a significant detour. A pedestrian access point or two would provide nice access from the north, and transform some 2 mile drives to 2 block walks.
Charging for use of the parking garage would decrease the people that would use it. However, there is currently no shortage of free parking in Mountain View. The garage could easily extract a premium for a guaranteed available spot in an attractive building. This money could help increase other facilities around downtown, and have a positive impact on the downtown and global environment. By making the garage free, the city is managing to throw-away money, increase traffic, and pollute the environment, without doing much to help downtown business.
Mountain View currently has a nice suburban downtown that is fairly pedestrian friendly, and contains a large amount of free on-street parking. Local downtown residents are more likely to walk to the other downtown restaurants and attractions. Many of the other visitors are likely within a short bike ride of the area. However, bicycle facilities are significantly absent. Bike racks are extremely hard to come by on Castro street, and the narrow lanes with significant street parking make riding a bike an advanced obstacle course journey. Spending the money to improve the bike-friendliness of the area may help to provide access for the same number of people without creating additional traffic in the area.
In addition, pedestrian improvements could be made. From north of the railroad tracks, the only real pedestrian access point is at Castro. This crossing includes a grade crossing of Central Expressway and the Caltrain tracks. If you happen to be on the wrong side of the street when a train comes, the light cycle could lead to a 5-10 minute wait. There are overcrossings at the Stevens Creek Trail and Shoreline, however, these require a significant detour. A pedestrian access point or two would provide nice access from the north, and transform some 2 mile drives to 2 block walks.
Charging for use of the parking garage would decrease the people that would use it. However, there is currently no shortage of free parking in Mountain View. The garage could easily extract a premium for a guaranteed available spot in an attractive building. This money could help increase other facilities around downtown, and have a positive impact on the downtown and global environment. By making the garage free, the city is managing to throw-away money, increase traffic, and pollute the environment, without doing much to help downtown business.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Oracle, unable to manage support accounts, sues SAP
Oracle lost a bunch of support business to SAP. However, Oracle's sysadmins must have been too lazy to actually disable to support accounts of the customers that left. So, they are in turn suing SAP for using those accounts. But, boy do they try to put a lot of spin on it. The article starts out with tales of high-tech breaking and entering. However, when it finally gets to explaining the crime, it turns out to be more of a case of forgetting to change the locks, or even shut the door after somebody moved out. If these were legitimate customer accounts, then it seems the worse SAP may have done was served as a delegate for support. (With the many companies outsourcing IT and support work, this is a very common occurance these days.) And perhaps, they may have a TOS violation for using an erroneous email address. The reasonable solution there would be to cancel support and disable the account - which is something they should have done once the customer left.
Oracle Sues Rival SAP for Alleged Theft
Oracle Sues Rival SAP for Alleged Theft
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Getting the trail-a-bike
My 5 year is starting to get too big for the bike trailer, but is still not quite big enough for most tandems. So, we're finally seriously looking at trail-a-bikes. Looks like the Burley rack-mounted one is out of the picture, so we are left with just seat-mounted ones. And now the big debate. I've seen a few primary models.
In-Step: After a horrible experience with their other products, we've vowed not to touch them again.
Schwin: Also look like a fairly low-end trail-a-bike
Adams: Pretty much the standard trail-a-bike. Most bike shops seem to carry the basic model.
Chariot: We love our Chariot trailer. The Catch'em does seem nice, but all the features do seem like overkill.
Novara: I saw the REI brand one when I went to look at the Adams. It was brand new, and none of the staff seemed to know much about it. The quick release clamping mechanism did seem like a plus.
Of course deciding on the bike is only part of the problem... I also have to figure out how to get it on my bike. The seatpost is a suspension post with not enough clearance for most trail-a-bikes. So, I'll need a new post. Unfortunately, its a 30.9 Specialized post, which seems to be rather hard to come by. One shop did have the post in stock, along with the Adams trail-a-bike... But their cost was $30 more than REI... Should I support the local shop and get it all at once? Or just do the piecemeal approach? And that is assuming a I go with the Adams. I also need to check out racks and fenders. It did look like the trail-a-bike could clear my rack, though the panniers are a question. And then there is that Electra tandem...
In-Step: After a horrible experience with their other products, we've vowed not to touch them again.
Schwin: Also look like a fairly low-end trail-a-bike
Adams: Pretty much the standard trail-a-bike. Most bike shops seem to carry the basic model.
Chariot: We love our Chariot trailer. The Catch'em does seem nice, but all the features do seem like overkill.
Novara: I saw the REI brand one when I went to look at the Adams. It was brand new, and none of the staff seemed to know much about it. The quick release clamping mechanism did seem like a plus.
Of course deciding on the bike is only part of the problem... I also have to figure out how to get it on my bike. The seatpost is a suspension post with not enough clearance for most trail-a-bikes. So, I'll need a new post. Unfortunately, its a 30.9 Specialized post, which seems to be rather hard to come by. One shop did have the post in stock, along with the Adams trail-a-bike... But their cost was $30 more than REI... Should I support the local shop and get it all at once? Or just do the piecemeal approach? And that is assuming a I go with the Adams. I also need to check out racks and fenders. It did look like the trail-a-bike could clear my rack, though the panniers are a question. And then there is that Electra tandem...
Monday, March 12, 2007
Halliburton yes, DPW no?
Halliburton just announced they were moving their CEO to Dubai, effectively making it a Dubai-based company. Of course, congress whipped itself up in to a frenzy about how they were trying to cheat America and escape taxes. However, missed in the point was the pure prejudice shown to Dubai Ports Worldwide. Halliburton has contracts with the military, and has fairly tight involvement with 'critical' US installations. DPW had merely purchased the contract to operate shipping terminals from another foreign company. However, in the end, both are 'Dubai-based companies'. If it is a security risk for a Dubai-based company to unload ships, I'd imagine it would be an even bigger risk for them to actually feed the troops.
It would be nice if the US actually supported free-trade in action, instead of stifling it whenever it seems it can win political favor. However, that may be asking too much. Maybe this Halliburton thing will help convince the pontificaters that Dubai can actually house some legitimate world companies. Nah, that may be stretching it, too. Perhaps all we can hope for is just a conclusion that any company that hires Cheney as CEO may just be shrewdly maximizing things for its own benefit.
It would be nice if the US actually supported free-trade in action, instead of stifling it whenever it seems it can win political favor. However, that may be asking too much. Maybe this Halliburton thing will help convince the pontificaters that Dubai can actually house some legitimate world companies. Nah, that may be stretching it, too. Perhaps all we can hope for is just a conclusion that any company that hires Cheney as CEO may just be shrewdly maximizing things for its own benefit.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Does programming language make a difference?
It seems that today "Java" is the in-vogue programming language that can make all web-development tasks easier. But does a language really make any difference? And does java really provide advantages over other languages?
Java is 'compiled' in to byte code, and then interpreted by the java virtual machine. The JVM concept is an advantage in the "write-once, deploy everywhere" paradigm. However, when deployed in a web environment, this primarily results in overhead. (How often is the webserver switched from one platform to another? A switch to different application servers is more likely - and this would still require rework if any application-server specific functionality is used.)
Then there is the persistent nature of java app servers. Instead of invoking a new connection like CGI, it just runs in the same JVM. This is often quite useful. However, fastcgi, and mod_xxx (mod_perl, mod_ruby, etc.) provide similar benefits for other languages.
Since java is essentially interpreted byte-code, it would seem to fall behind other languages like C that are truly compiled. However, since the source has to be compiled to byte-code, it also takes more time to develop than other scripting languages that don't require the separate compiling step.
OO is another potential benefit - however, most languages today have OO capabilities, so java has no monopoly there. On the other hand, the ability to do lightweight scripting without the strict object overhead is not available within java.
Web libraries to facilitate development are also available in most language. And page templates (like JSP) are also quite common. (Though its unlikely that systems like .jsp will ever truly achieve the goal of complete separation of code and content - unless pages remain static.)
What about code quality? That is essentially the same as discussing the quality of spoken Hungarian vs. spoken English. There may be great speakers, and there may be horrible speakers. Constructs of the language may contribute to certain aspects of speech, but in the end, it is the speaker that matters the most. The same goes with programmers.
Java is 'compiled' in to byte code, and then interpreted by the java virtual machine. The JVM concept is an advantage in the "write-once, deploy everywhere" paradigm. However, when deployed in a web environment, this primarily results in overhead. (How often is the webserver switched from one platform to another? A switch to different application servers is more likely - and this would still require rework if any application-server specific functionality is used.)
Then there is the persistent nature of java app servers. Instead of invoking a new connection like CGI, it just runs in the same JVM. This is often quite useful. However, fastcgi, and mod_xxx (mod_perl, mod_ruby, etc.) provide similar benefits for other languages.
Since java is essentially interpreted byte-code, it would seem to fall behind other languages like C that are truly compiled. However, since the source has to be compiled to byte-code, it also takes more time to develop than other scripting languages that don't require the separate compiling step.
OO is another potential benefit - however, most languages today have OO capabilities, so java has no monopoly there. On the other hand, the ability to do lightweight scripting without the strict object overhead is not available within java.
Web libraries to facilitate development are also available in most language. And page templates (like JSP) are also quite common. (Though its unlikely that systems like .jsp will ever truly achieve the goal of complete separation of code and content - unless pages remain static.)
What about code quality? That is essentially the same as discussing the quality of spoken Hungarian vs. spoken English. There may be great speakers, and there may be horrible speakers. Constructs of the language may contribute to certain aspects of speech, but in the end, it is the speaker that matters the most. The same goes with programmers.
Friday, December 08, 2006
ADA improvements, but who can use it?
I got a note today saying the due to a tenant improvement project, the City of Sunnyvale was required ADA city ode related modifications for access to the front of the building. Due to this work some parking lot spaces at the front of the building will be shut down.
So now access to the front of the building will be improved. However, getting to the building is still a problem. There are no sidewalks in front of the building. There are sidewalks across the street - but no crosswalks or even pedestrian ramps to cross the street.
However, the city has been unwilling to require sidewalks. The rather week sidewalk ordinance has plenty of exceptions (see http://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/199912/rtcs/99-512.asp)
A berm or a tree in the way, or is a justifiable excuse. And sidewalk requirements don't even come in to the picture for remodels.
How hard would it be to put a sidewalk in place? Most buildings that have a 'berm' or trees by the street have a parking lot right behind the trees or berm. A few parkings spaces can be removed, and some travel patterns changed to create a sidewalk. But, alas, the minimum parking requirement always trumps the sidewalk requirement.
So now access to the front of the building will be improved. However, getting to the building is still a problem. There are no sidewalks in front of the building. There are sidewalks across the street - but no crosswalks or even pedestrian ramps to cross the street.
However, the city has been unwilling to require sidewalks. The rather week sidewalk ordinance has plenty of exceptions (see http://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/199912/rtcs/99-512.asp)
A berm or a tree in the way, or is a justifiable excuse. And sidewalk requirements don't even come in to the picture for remodels.
How hard would it be to put a sidewalk in place? Most buildings that have a 'berm' or trees by the street have a parking lot right behind the trees or berm. A few parkings spaces can be removed, and some travel patterns changed to create a sidewalk. But, alas, the minimum parking requirement always trumps the sidewalk requirement.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Bad street design of the week
And the winner is... Lawrence and Arques in Sunnyvale.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1200+E+Arques+Ave,+Sunnyvale,+CA+94085&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=37.38136,-121.995599&spn=0.007246,0.021629&t=h&om=1
On the south side of the is a small shopping plaza. On the north side is another mall shopping area. In theory you could just cross the street to get from one to another. However, there is a nice big median blocking the way. So a pedestrian has to walk down to Lawrence or Lakeside. The distance is not too far. Unfortunately, the sidewalks are incomplete, and there is no cross walk on the near side of Lakeside.
For a car, the situation is much worse. They can go through the parking lots to get to Titan and then over to Lakeside, and then up to Oakmead, then down to Central, and over to the plaza. About 2 miles, with 3 stoplights - all to go across the street. If you are on Arques and need to go down Lawrence instead, you can add an additional stoplight, while still traveling around 2 miles.
However, don't expect to do a simple U-turn at Lawrence - its not allowed, so if you do want one, you will have to wait through the 3-minute light cycle twice to go through. Oh, and don't expect to make a U-turn immediately on Arques, either. There is a median, and then a no u-turn sign. But there are a few parking lots that you can use to make a turn.
So, why do they have a median and not let you cross? Well, you can go south through the light on lakeside to get to the plaza on the south. However, you have to go a few hundred feet through the Toshiba parking lot, signed as not allowing through traffic.
What about just removing the median? That would be too easy. But the left turn traffic on Lawrence backs up for a ways. They do have two left turn bays, but one they are extremely short, so once its backed up, it is essentially one. Why not just shorten the light-cycle on Lawrence, so that Arques traffic can go twice as often, and then eliminate the semi-redundant left turn? That would be too easy of a solution...
And don't forget pedestrians. Today a group of peds approached the intersection right as the light turned green. Sorry, they didn't hit the button in time, no time for them.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1200+E+Arques+Ave,+Sunnyvale,+CA+94085&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=37.38136,-121.995599&spn=0.007246,0.021629&t=h&om=1
On the south side of the is a small shopping plaza. On the north side is another mall shopping area. In theory you could just cross the street to get from one to another. However, there is a nice big median blocking the way. So a pedestrian has to walk down to Lawrence or Lakeside. The distance is not too far. Unfortunately, the sidewalks are incomplete, and there is no cross walk on the near side of Lakeside.
For a car, the situation is much worse. They can go through the parking lots to get to Titan and then over to Lakeside, and then up to Oakmead, then down to Central, and over to the plaza. About 2 miles, with 3 stoplights - all to go across the street. If you are on Arques and need to go down Lawrence instead, you can add an additional stoplight, while still traveling around 2 miles.
However, don't expect to do a simple U-turn at Lawrence - its not allowed, so if you do want one, you will have to wait through the 3-minute light cycle twice to go through. Oh, and don't expect to make a U-turn immediately on Arques, either. There is a median, and then a no u-turn sign. But there are a few parking lots that you can use to make a turn.
So, why do they have a median and not let you cross? Well, you can go south through the light on lakeside to get to the plaza on the south. However, you have to go a few hundred feet through the Toshiba parking lot, signed as not allowing through traffic.
What about just removing the median? That would be too easy. But the left turn traffic on Lawrence backs up for a ways. They do have two left turn bays, but one they are extremely short, so once its backed up, it is essentially one. Why not just shorten the light-cycle on Lawrence, so that Arques traffic can go twice as often, and then eliminate the semi-redundant left turn? That would be too easy of a solution...
And don't forget pedestrians. Today a group of peds approached the intersection right as the light turned green. Sorry, they didn't hit the button in time, no time for them.
Monday, October 30, 2006
California Initiatives
California sent out a 190 page booklet of initiatives for the upcoming election. Why do we even bother electing representatives?
Many of the propositions and measures are filled with good intentions, but fall apart in the details. Here are my endorsements:
Santa Clara County Measure A - no. It claims to protect hillsides and agricultural land. This seems good on the surface. However, it is carried out by setting large minimum lot-sizes, and grandfathering in everybody currently there. Not good. If we were truthful about protecting hillsides and agriculture, we would simply enact a ban on development in those areas. Minimum lot-size requirements were what created suburban sprawl in the first place. This can have the potential for creating similar rural sprawl, instead of encouraging the dense, smart growth that is needed.
On to the California measures -
1A) NO. This restricts from borrowing from the gas tax. The gas tax is already restricted to transportation. Property taxes aren't restricted to property development, business taxes aren't restricted to business development. But gas taxes get their special treatment. And now they want to make it more difficult to borrow against them. Thus if oil prices skyrocketed and the economy tanked, we would be forced to immediately build lots of roads. Not exactly smart.
1B) NO. This bond issues consists of a number of transportation earmarks, with a focus on reducing congestion by increasing road capacity. Much of the congestion occurred due to the increased capacity. If less space were devoted to roads, people could live closer to jobs, and drive shorter distances. Less driving = less congestion. Furthermore, there is already a dedicated funding source for transportation projects - why not use that and save the $19 billion in interest. If we build all the roads now, they will likely need to be rebuilt or replaced before the bond is paid off. If we don't build them all right now, why are we issuing a bond? $20 billion devoted mostly to roads will only decrease air quality and commute times, while increasing indebtedness.
1C) NO. Why are bonds needed to encourage homeownership? There are a hodgepodge of housing related programs in this bond issue. However, to be best used these need to be long term programs. A long term program would be much better run with a regular appropriation source rather than an expensive bond issue that doubles its cost. Furthermore, high housing costs are a function of supply and demand. Adding subsidies for certain people raises the cost for others. The best solution with the current demand is to increase supply by increasing density. California has endless suburban sprawl. Converting some of these single-family developments to moderately sized, walkable multi-family developments would increase affordability and reduce traffic. Simply build for people instead of cars.
1D) NO. Local bonds for schools make a lot of sense. State bonds don't. There are many previously built-out areas that have unused schools. High property prices and prop. 13 encourage people to stay put, thus making it difficult for young families to live in old neighborhoods. Thus new neighborhoods are built further away, and new schools are needed. Again, the state portion could be more economically done as a pay-as-you-go. Schools will need to be updated over time, not all at once. Also, there is a provision to encourage replacing portable buildings with fixed buildings. With mild weather, many schools are constructed in with a number of small stand-alone buildings. Portable buildings are an efficient way of adding capacity that can be more easily removed when needed. With a multiple building design, there is minimal difference between these and other buildings. Why encourage them to be removed?
1E) NO. The delta levees appear to be in poor condition. Immediate repair may be needed to avoid high costs, especially if catastrophic weather conditions occur. This would be a very appropriate use of bond money. However, the measure itself lists an estimated cost of repairing the levees of $7-$12 billion, while only allocating $3 billion. Furthermore, there does not appear to be accountability restrictions. Why is construction still being allowed in the flood-prone areas of the delta? This needs to be addressed in a proper delta bond measure.
83) NO. Expensive draconian punishments for sex offenders. They can't live within a half mile of a school or park. Where will they live? If sex offenses are so bad, effort should be spent minimizing the initial cause of sex offenses, rather than putting the extreme punishments.
84) NO. It's difficult to see why there is an immediate need for this water bond. The funds are also very narrowly earmarked, limiting its flexibility.
85) YES. Parental notification for abortion. There are sufficient options to satisfy the concerns of abusive parents. This can help prevent somebody from getting unduly pressured in to a procedure with possible consequences.
86) YES. Cigarette tax. This is an extremely high tax that will probably cause a drop in smoking (and an increase in smuggling) The use of the excess funding is somewhat worrisome. (There are excessive earmarks and restrictions.) However, this can serve as a better model of regulating other drugs (like marijuana)
87) YES. Oil production tax. Raising the cost of production is a politically easy way to raise money. With gasoline as a global commodity, there is little chance that this will have a significant change in gasoline prices. In one extreme, oil companies may find it so expensive to extract oil from California, that they leave the state. This will preserve oil for a later time when it is much more expensive and scarce. On the other extreme, production will continue and increase, raising huge amounts of money for alternative energy research. There are some problems with the spending - too much is spent for gasoline substitution plans - without including alternatives to cars themselves. However, its a good start.
88) NO. This is a bad attempt to through a few pennies at schools while adding a huge layer of government regulation. This is another poor attempt to 'improve' open the problems of Proposition 13 that will only make matters worse. A better option would be to make it easier for people to vote themselves a local property tax increase for education, or reduce the 2% increase in assessed value.
89) NO. Campaign finance reform. A key problem is limits on the amount of money that minor party candidates can receive. This gives increased favoritism to major political parties at the expense of new ideas. Also raising the tax on businesses seems like an unfair way of doing it. (Why not close a few loopholes instead? Or add a tax specifically on media companies - who tend to benefit from political advertising.)
90) NO. This attempt to protect property rights could prove to be even worse than proposition 13. For one, it gives heirs to require property if it is no longer used for its original purpose. Thus if a school closes down, it could not be transformed in to a park without the risk of an heir claiming the right to the property (and being taxed as if it were their previous cherry farm.) Furthermore, it allows for compensation for damaged property, regardless of the cause, as well as jury trials for determining fair market value. Not only could this be expensive, it could be unfair with vastly different results. (However, some may be good - perhaps I could claim property was damaged by an extra freeway lane, or increased air pollution.)
Many of the propositions and measures are filled with good intentions, but fall apart in the details. Here are my endorsements:
Santa Clara County Measure A - no. It claims to protect hillsides and agricultural land. This seems good on the surface. However, it is carried out by setting large minimum lot-sizes, and grandfathering in everybody currently there. Not good. If we were truthful about protecting hillsides and agriculture, we would simply enact a ban on development in those areas. Minimum lot-size requirements were what created suburban sprawl in the first place. This can have the potential for creating similar rural sprawl, instead of encouraging the dense, smart growth that is needed.
On to the California measures -
1A) NO. This restricts from borrowing from the gas tax. The gas tax is already restricted to transportation. Property taxes aren't restricted to property development, business taxes aren't restricted to business development. But gas taxes get their special treatment. And now they want to make it more difficult to borrow against them. Thus if oil prices skyrocketed and the economy tanked, we would be forced to immediately build lots of roads. Not exactly smart.
1B) NO. This bond issues consists of a number of transportation earmarks, with a focus on reducing congestion by increasing road capacity. Much of the congestion occurred due to the increased capacity. If less space were devoted to roads, people could live closer to jobs, and drive shorter distances. Less driving = less congestion. Furthermore, there is already a dedicated funding source for transportation projects - why not use that and save the $19 billion in interest. If we build all the roads now, they will likely need to be rebuilt or replaced before the bond is paid off. If we don't build them all right now, why are we issuing a bond? $20 billion devoted mostly to roads will only decrease air quality and commute times, while increasing indebtedness.
1C) NO. Why are bonds needed to encourage homeownership? There are a hodgepodge of housing related programs in this bond issue. However, to be best used these need to be long term programs. A long term program would be much better run with a regular appropriation source rather than an expensive bond issue that doubles its cost. Furthermore, high housing costs are a function of supply and demand. Adding subsidies for certain people raises the cost for others. The best solution with the current demand is to increase supply by increasing density. California has endless suburban sprawl. Converting some of these single-family developments to moderately sized, walkable multi-family developments would increase affordability and reduce traffic. Simply build for people instead of cars.
1D) NO. Local bonds for schools make a lot of sense. State bonds don't. There are many previously built-out areas that have unused schools. High property prices and prop. 13 encourage people to stay put, thus making it difficult for young families to live in old neighborhoods. Thus new neighborhoods are built further away, and new schools are needed. Again, the state portion could be more economically done as a pay-as-you-go. Schools will need to be updated over time, not all at once. Also, there is a provision to encourage replacing portable buildings with fixed buildings. With mild weather, many schools are constructed in with a number of small stand-alone buildings. Portable buildings are an efficient way of adding capacity that can be more easily removed when needed. With a multiple building design, there is minimal difference between these and other buildings. Why encourage them to be removed?
1E) NO. The delta levees appear to be in poor condition. Immediate repair may be needed to avoid high costs, especially if catastrophic weather conditions occur. This would be a very appropriate use of bond money. However, the measure itself lists an estimated cost of repairing the levees of $7-$12 billion, while only allocating $3 billion. Furthermore, there does not appear to be accountability restrictions. Why is construction still being allowed in the flood-prone areas of the delta? This needs to be addressed in a proper delta bond measure.
83) NO. Expensive draconian punishments for sex offenders. They can't live within a half mile of a school or park. Where will they live? If sex offenses are so bad, effort should be spent minimizing the initial cause of sex offenses, rather than putting the extreme punishments.
84) NO. It's difficult to see why there is an immediate need for this water bond. The funds are also very narrowly earmarked, limiting its flexibility.
85) YES. Parental notification for abortion. There are sufficient options to satisfy the concerns of abusive parents. This can help prevent somebody from getting unduly pressured in to a procedure with possible consequences.
86) YES. Cigarette tax. This is an extremely high tax that will probably cause a drop in smoking (and an increase in smuggling) The use of the excess funding is somewhat worrisome. (There are excessive earmarks and restrictions.) However, this can serve as a better model of regulating other drugs (like marijuana)
87) YES. Oil production tax. Raising the cost of production is a politically easy way to raise money. With gasoline as a global commodity, there is little chance that this will have a significant change in gasoline prices. In one extreme, oil companies may find it so expensive to extract oil from California, that they leave the state. This will preserve oil for a later time when it is much more expensive and scarce. On the other extreme, production will continue and increase, raising huge amounts of money for alternative energy research. There are some problems with the spending - too much is spent for gasoline substitution plans - without including alternatives to cars themselves. However, its a good start.
88) NO. This is a bad attempt to through a few pennies at schools while adding a huge layer of government regulation. This is another poor attempt to 'improve' open the problems of Proposition 13 that will only make matters worse. A better option would be to make it easier for people to vote themselves a local property tax increase for education, or reduce the 2% increase in assessed value.
89) NO. Campaign finance reform. A key problem is limits on the amount of money that minor party candidates can receive. This gives increased favoritism to major political parties at the expense of new ideas. Also raising the tax on businesses seems like an unfair way of doing it. (Why not close a few loopholes instead? Or add a tax specifically on media companies - who tend to benefit from political advertising.)
90) NO. This attempt to protect property rights could prove to be even worse than proposition 13. For one, it gives heirs to require property if it is no longer used for its original purpose. Thus if a school closes down, it could not be transformed in to a park without the risk of an heir claiming the right to the property (and being taxed as if it were their previous cherry farm.) Furthermore, it allows for compensation for damaged property, regardless of the cause, as well as jury trials for determining fair market value. Not only could this be expensive, it could be unfair with vastly different results. (However, some may be good - perhaps I could claim property was damaged by an extra freeway lane, or increased air pollution.)
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
How traffic should be...
I was riding down Cascade, when I reached the stoplight at Hollenbeck. I waited there, and the sensor picked up my bike and gave me a green signal. I looked at the other street and the only vehicle that was stopped on Hollenbeck was another cyclist...
Last night, I was riding north down Sunnyvale Avenue. About half of the vehicles I saw were other bicyclists - all equiped with lights in front and back. (One behind me was exceptionally bright.)
(Alas, later on the trip back, most of the other cyclists were the 'hidden in the dark' types without lights.)
Bike traffic is peaceful, and pleasant. If only the focus were made on these wonderful vehicles.
Last night, I was riding north down Sunnyvale Avenue. About half of the vehicles I saw were other bicyclists - all equiped with lights in front and back. (One behind me was exceptionally bright.)
(Alas, later on the trip back, most of the other cyclists were the 'hidden in the dark' types without lights.)
Bike traffic is peaceful, and pleasant. If only the focus were made on these wonderful vehicles.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Free in the eye of the beholder
A recent article in Yahoo News about California suing car companies:
If most people are price sensitive, why aren't the manufacturers making cheap cars? Car manufacturers could eliminate some 'luxury features', and substitute in a more efficient engine, and sell the car at the same cost. Why not let consumers decide whether greater fuel efficiency or a CD changer is more valuable. Why are there no hybrid wagons or mini-vans? And why do they think people don't like smaller or lighter? (Are there any recent high-quality light-weight cars?)
Automakers have done very little to improve the actual driving technology, and have instead focused on adding all sorts of extra features within a pretty much standard car design. It is about time for a revolution in transportation.
Adoption of diesel engine emissions technology or gasoline- electric hybrids comes at great cost and improving gas mileage also likely means smaller lighter vehicles, trade-offs that are not attractive to consumers, he added.
"These are not free technologies, they are very expensive," Cole said. "Most people are price sensitive."
If most people are price sensitive, why aren't the manufacturers making cheap cars? Car manufacturers could eliminate some 'luxury features', and substitute in a more efficient engine, and sell the car at the same cost. Why not let consumers decide whether greater fuel efficiency or a CD changer is more valuable. Why are there no hybrid wagons or mini-vans? And why do they think people don't like smaller or lighter? (Are there any recent high-quality light-weight cars?)
Automakers have done very little to improve the actual driving technology, and have instead focused on adding all sorts of extra features within a pretty much standard car design. It is about time for a revolution in transportation.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The sad state of unenforced traffic laws
Eastbound Arques at Wolfe has two "no turn on red" signs posted. Yesterday, again I saw another car come to the intersection and make a nice turn on red. There does not seem to be anything inherently unsafe about the intersection. However, this seems to be a common problem in the traffic scheme in Sunnyvale. Many rules and regulations are put in place, but not enforced.
Stop signs also are interesting. Approaching a busy street, the side street has a stop sign. However, cars will often either stop because the traffic forces them to, or they will do a rolling stop and move because things are clear. Why is it signed for the worse case?
And look at speed limits. The older driver seems to endure endless honking as they obey the law and drive slightly under the speed limit.
Why not set traffic regulations at the level that they are expected and then enforce them. (Would a city mandate that a building could not exceed 70 feet high, and then be happy when the average new building adhering to this regulation was only 75 feet?) The culture of excessive unenforced regulation also makes enforcement more difficult. If everybody is doing it, why is only the problem causer punished?
Stop signs also are interesting. Approaching a busy street, the side street has a stop sign. However, cars will often either stop because the traffic forces them to, or they will do a rolling stop and move because things are clear. Why is it signed for the worse case?
And look at speed limits. The older driver seems to endure endless honking as they obey the law and drive slightly under the speed limit.
Why not set traffic regulations at the level that they are expected and then enforce them. (Would a city mandate that a building could not exceed 70 feet high, and then be happy when the average new building adhering to this regulation was only 75 feet?) The culture of excessive unenforced regulation also makes enforcement more difficult. If everybody is doing it, why is only the problem causer punished?
Landis - victim of firing squad?
Stumbled across this article on Landis from an Alaskan columnist.
One of the rare ones that actually looks in to the details of the Floyd Landis Tour de France episode:
"Landis' epitestosterone-to-testosterone ratio was above the arbitrary standard set by the cycling federation and the ratio of Carbon-12 (6 protons/6 neutrons) to Carbon-13 (6 protons/7 neutrons) atoms in his urine sample indicated he might have used plant-derived testosterone, versus the animal derivative produced by the human body."
Out of the many articles I've read, that is one of the rare one that actually looks at a few details of the test.
One other factor that seems to be missing from the press reports is "What Advantage did he obtain from it?" From the limited information available, it appears that a slightly elevated level would only be beneficial over a long time - and his test did not show anything in the tests before or after. So, in theory any elevation did not provide him a benefit, thus providing no harm to the sport. And since it was so short lived, it would not have provided any harm to him. Thus, since it provided no advantage and no harm, why is it problematic?
Also, the test for 'synthetics' is only administered if the ratio is above the "4:1" limit. Thus there is limited control. Would it have shown synthetic even when the ratio is low? And this test was just for ratios. How did the actual amounts compare to a previous test? Was one suddenly much lower? Or was there a difference in how substances were metabolized?
It seems amazing how the media is quick to send somebody to the executioner based on miniscule evidence or proof of wrong doing. (But should we expected any different after the initial disqualifications at the start of the race.)
Seems like a good reason to keep using my bike for transport rather than sport.
One of the rare ones that actually looks in to the details of the Floyd Landis Tour de France episode:
"Landis' epitestosterone-to-testosterone ratio was above the arbitrary standard set by the cycling federation and the ratio of Carbon-12 (6 protons/6 neutrons) to Carbon-13 (6 protons/7 neutrons) atoms in his urine sample indicated he might have used plant-derived testosterone, versus the animal derivative produced by the human body."
Out of the many articles I've read, that is one of the rare one that actually looks at a few details of the test.
One other factor that seems to be missing from the press reports is "What Advantage did he obtain from it?" From the limited information available, it appears that a slightly elevated level would only be beneficial over a long time - and his test did not show anything in the tests before or after. So, in theory any elevation did not provide him a benefit, thus providing no harm to the sport. And since it was so short lived, it would not have provided any harm to him. Thus, since it provided no advantage and no harm, why is it problematic?
Also, the test for 'synthetics' is only administered if the ratio is above the "4:1" limit. Thus there is limited control. Would it have shown synthetic even when the ratio is low? And this test was just for ratios. How did the actual amounts compare to a previous test? Was one suddenly much lower? Or was there a difference in how substances were metabolized?
It seems amazing how the media is quick to send somebody to the executioner based on miniscule evidence or proof of wrong doing. (But should we expected any different after the initial disqualifications at the start of the race.)
Seems like a good reason to keep using my bike for transport rather than sport.
Friday, July 28, 2006
London, bike registration, and jaywalking
The July 28, 2006 Times of London had an interesting article title "Cycle numberplate plan to catch lawless riders". The proposal was to affix plates to bicycles so they can be caught by cameras for violations (like riding on sidewalks.) That may actually be a sound policy to help encourage better cycling behavior. The number of people cycling has shot up 50% in the last 5 years, after remaining relatively flat for 10 years. (though the dates mentioned in the article appear somewhat suspect). However, the remainder of the article had some very interesting quotes from London mayor Ken Livingston.
"In America jaywalking is illegal, but in America you have this situation that at virtually every busy junction there is a zebra crossing and as the lights change the pedestrian has priority and only when they've crossed can then the cars turn....
But if you are going to ban jaywalking you're going to have to have a lot more actual formal pedestrian crossings."
I've seen pedestrian priority lights in San Francisco where the peds get a couple second head start before cars go. However, in most of the United States, pedestrians have to fight it out with the cars to cross. Crosswalks are fairly common at busy intersections. However, it is also common to see iomitteded from one side of the road so as not to 'interfere' with turning traffic. And in many cases they are not put in place, and pedestrians only get the 'green man' if they push a button. 'Jaywalking' is a concious choice by pedestrians to directly cross where they feel most safe. Thus it is really not a pedestrian problem, but a problem for other vehicles.
Perhaps the congestion charge has been working too well in London. Now that traffic can actual move, the cars want to keep pedestrians and anything else that slows them down out of the way.
"In America jaywalking is illegal, but in America you have this situation that at virtually every busy junction there is a zebra crossing and as the lights change the pedestrian has priority and only when they've crossed can then the cars turn....
But if you are going to ban jaywalking you're going to have to have a lot more actual formal pedestrian crossings."
I've seen pedestrian priority lights in San Francisco where the peds get a couple second head start before cars go. However, in most of the United States, pedestrians have to fight it out with the cars to cross. Crosswalks are fairly common at busy intersections. However, it is also common to see iomitteded from one side of the road so as not to 'interfere' with turning traffic. And in many cases they are not put in place, and pedestrians only get the 'green man' if they push a button. 'Jaywalking' is a concious choice by pedestrians to directly cross where they feel most safe. Thus it is really not a pedestrian problem, but a problem for other vehicles.
Perhaps the congestion charge has been working too well in London. Now that traffic can actual move, the cars want to keep pedestrians and anything else that slows them down out of the way.
Athletes and Doping
Floyd Landis was accused of having elevated testosterone levels after is 'come-from-behind' stage win in the Tour de France. It makes you wonder why anybody would be stupid enough to take performance enhancing drugs at that point. (Did he figure he had no chance of winning, so might-as-well take something to climb up in the standings. Only the stage winner, overall leader, and a couple random cyclists are tested, so odds are good he wouldn't be tested.) However, testosterone only helps out if it is taken over a period of time. Would one shot really help? Could there have been some shenanigans going on where he was framed? Or could it actually have occurred legitimately. Hopefully this will be sorted out soon.
However, a big question is, why do we care? There are a whole slew of 'performance enhancing' drugs that are legal. There are others that cannot be detected. Why are we so concerned about some but not others?
A simple answer could be that we care about the long-term harm to the athletes. But, an athletic career only lasts 10-20 years, while there are much more time to live after that. A logical athlete wouldn't sacrifice his life for it. Or would he? With the short span of the career, there is no option to 'do it later'. All of the rewards come in the short time. Perhaps if all prize and endorsement money were paid out over a 50 year period, there would be an economic incentive to not harm the body. However, there is still the pride incentive. As long as professional sports are a big thing, and athletes are idolized, there will always be the desire to enhance the body in the short term, with possible long term consequences? Should we care? After all, there are plenty of other things athletes do that could be harmful long term. (Look at the knee injuries in many sports.)
However, a big question is, why do we care? There are a whole slew of 'performance enhancing' drugs that are legal. There are others that cannot be detected. Why are we so concerned about some but not others?
A simple answer could be that we care about the long-term harm to the athletes. But, an athletic career only lasts 10-20 years, while there are much more time to live after that. A logical athlete wouldn't sacrifice his life for it. Or would he? With the short span of the career, there is no option to 'do it later'. All of the rewards come in the short time. Perhaps if all prize and endorsement money were paid out over a 50 year period, there would be an economic incentive to not harm the body. However, there is still the pride incentive. As long as professional sports are a big thing, and athletes are idolized, there will always be the desire to enhance the body in the short term, with possible long term consequences? Should we care? After all, there are plenty of other things athletes do that could be harmful long term. (Look at the knee injuries in many sports.)
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
New Urbanism
Article responding to new urbanism critiques
This article focused on refuting some of the critiques of new urbanism.
one of the first thing it brings up is what new urbanism isn't:
"New urbanism projects, particularly those involving intensive office and retail uses, regularly meet either conventional (single-use) or shared parking ratios (parking spaces per one thousand square feet of leasable space) defined by the real estate industry."
This brings up one critique of New Urbanism that wasn't;t addressed: driving. The structure of new urbanism with abundant parking makes it easy to drive. While a new-urbanism development would enable somebody to both walk and drive, there is little disincentive to driving. So, when the weather turns sour, those many short walking trips could easily turn in to many short driving trips. And if in the car, why not go a little further to the big box to keep cheaper things? Building an environment that brings pedestrian to the same level as cars is a good start. However, the goal should be to give pedestrians a higher priority.
The car parking data is of great concern. If people are to have the ability to walk, why is so much space devoted to cars? IF less space is devoted to cars, density could be increased, while still providing more individual space.
Another unaddressed NU shortcoming is described in a defense: "NU's greatest contribution comes not at a macro-policy level but at the level of site planning, neighborhood design, and development."
The problem is that an isolated 'enclave' does not fully provide for its residents. If it were isolated and built on a micro scale with 1000 miles of ocean separating it, then it would be self-sufficient. However, most areas in the US are built on suburban sites. One dense walkable area 15 miles away from a job center, may produce more car miles traveled than a sprawling burb 2 miles from the job center. The location does need to be considered as part of the development question. However, the author is correct in the grand importance of the micro view
The economic critiques of urban developments (and new urbanism) is also one of the main reasons we need more of it. New urbanist housing is generally more expensive than sprawl housing. Basic economics teaches that when demand exceeds supply, price will be higher. Urban developments are expense because many people desire them, yet there is not sufficient development. Furthermore, restrictions are built up to discourage walkable communities. Parking requirements, traffic manuals, setbacks, and many other legal requirements are codified in favor of sprawl growth. The fight to overcome these impediments causes more sprawl growth that is not wanted. New Urbanism, though it has many flaws could be a good step to overcome the barriers and begin to level the playing field. New urbanism actually gives more options and more freedom. A far cry from the suburban sprawl model that has included more homeowners associations and additional layers of restrictions.
This article focused on refuting some of the critiques of new urbanism.
one of the first thing it brings up is what new urbanism isn't:
"New urbanism projects, particularly those involving intensive office and retail uses, regularly meet either conventional (single-use) or shared parking ratios (parking spaces per one thousand square feet of leasable space) defined by the real estate industry."
This brings up one critique of New Urbanism that wasn't;t addressed: driving. The structure of new urbanism with abundant parking makes it easy to drive. While a new-urbanism development would enable somebody to both walk and drive, there is little disincentive to driving. So, when the weather turns sour, those many short walking trips could easily turn in to many short driving trips. And if in the car, why not go a little further to the big box to keep cheaper things? Building an environment that brings pedestrian to the same level as cars is a good start. However, the goal should be to give pedestrians a higher priority.
The car parking data is of great concern. If people are to have the ability to walk, why is so much space devoted to cars? IF less space is devoted to cars, density could be increased, while still providing more individual space.
Another unaddressed NU shortcoming is described in a defense: "NU's greatest contribution comes not at a macro-policy level but at the level of site planning, neighborhood design, and development."
The problem is that an isolated 'enclave' does not fully provide for its residents. If it were isolated and built on a micro scale with 1000 miles of ocean separating it, then it would be self-sufficient. However, most areas in the US are built on suburban sites. One dense walkable area 15 miles away from a job center, may produce more car miles traveled than a sprawling burb 2 miles from the job center. The location does need to be considered as part of the development question. However, the author is correct in the grand importance of the micro view
The economic critiques of urban developments (and new urbanism) is also one of the main reasons we need more of it. New urbanist housing is generally more expensive than sprawl housing. Basic economics teaches that when demand exceeds supply, price will be higher. Urban developments are expense because many people desire them, yet there is not sufficient development. Furthermore, restrictions are built up to discourage walkable communities. Parking requirements, traffic manuals, setbacks, and many other legal requirements are codified in favor of sprawl growth. The fight to overcome these impediments causes more sprawl growth that is not wanted. New Urbanism, though it has many flaws could be a good step to overcome the barriers and begin to level the playing field. New urbanism actually gives more options and more freedom. A far cry from the suburban sprawl model that has included more homeowners associations and additional layers of restrictions.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
And how the VTA increases traffic
An interesting VTA Workshop document can help shed light on what goes on in the minds of transit planners in Santa Clara county.
It's amazing how much money the VTA would like to throw away on expressways. Where to start... $13 million to widen an uncongested portion of central expressway. (Perhaps an attempt to make congestion on other portions even worse) A few hundred thousand here and there to convert HOV lanes to mixed flow (so much for encouraging car pooling). Half a million to reduce access on Lawrence. And that's just the expressways.
The criteria for selecting these is stated as "increasing LOS F intersections and keep them from downgrading back to LOS F by 2025". Many of these involve reducing access, thus they can be expected to accelerate degradation of other intersections. Focussing on intersection LOS can also degrade facilities for non-car travelers, and thus cause additional increases in travel. And even if it is a long-term success, the increased travel speeds can result in longer travel distances, and thus greater miles traveled and worse environmental conditions.
This document projects $32 million for bikes with $1.9 billion for freeways. We can hope things have come along a little in the past few years. With the money spent on expressways, all VTA transit service could easily be fare-free for the entire span of the program.
It's amazing how much money the VTA would like to throw away on expressways. Where to start... $13 million to widen an uncongested portion of central expressway. (Perhaps an attempt to make congestion on other portions even worse) A few hundred thousand here and there to convert HOV lanes to mixed flow (so much for encouraging car pooling). Half a million to reduce access on Lawrence. And that's just the expressways.
The criteria for selecting these is stated as "increasing LOS F intersections and keep them from downgrading back to LOS F by 2025". Many of these involve reducing access, thus they can be expected to accelerate degradation of other intersections. Focussing on intersection LOS can also degrade facilities for non-car travelers, and thus cause additional increases in travel. And even if it is a long-term success, the increased travel speeds can result in longer travel distances, and thus greater miles traveled and worse environmental conditions.
This document projects $32 million for bikes with $1.9 billion for freeways. We can hope things have come along a little in the past few years. With the money spent on expressways, all VTA transit service could easily be fare-free for the entire span of the program.
Why not foot-traffic engineering?
An example of the past thinking of traffic management can be found in the report on Hollenbeck Avenue/Harvard Avenue Traffic Control:
"On the segment of Hollenbeck between Danforth and Remington, the average speed is 32 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 36mph. These are much closer to the posted speed limit than is normally found." The speed limit is 30. There are a number of driveways lining the street, as well as two side streets (Knickerbocker and Harvard) within this area that may bring down the speed. It thus seems clear that the majority of the drivers are speeding - and this is one of the better streets. If fines, are at least sufficient to cover enforcement cost, the road could be made safer with no net cost to taxpayers.
Regarding removing parking at the Harvard/Hollenbeck intersection, staff objected that "Individual residences front onto Hollenbeck. The removal of parking would probably cause a hardship or inconvenience to these residents. The greater concern is whether the City should take action that might encourage pedestrian crossings at this location." Thus its more important to preserve unused free parking than to provide facilities for pedestrians. Alas, they had no study to determine the demand for free parking on the street. Based on the use (or lack thereof), the hardship would be that somebody would be required to park their car in the driveway instead of the street. And in the worst case, they may have to walk at most an extra hundred feet to their parked vehicle. Meanwhile, staff's preferred alternative is to require pedestrians to walk an extra 1250 feet to Remmington or Danforth. (Walking a few feet is a great hardship for drivers, but a 1000 feet is ideal for pedestrians.
Another interesting bit was the use of traffic "warrants" to justify the placement of a signal. They use the current pedestrian counts to say that a signal is not justified. However, elsewhere, they object to enhancements that might increase pedestrian crossings. IF the enhancement would increase the number of crossings, shouldn't this estimated increase be used as the basis of the pedestrian count? And if it is really a goal to encourage the environmental, economic and health benefits of pedestrians as opposed to automobiles, shouldn't they take priority over cars through movement.
In the end, the city council barely rejected adding a traffic light by a 4-3 vote.
It is interesting to compare the statement from a city council member to that of the staff report. The council member investigated the conditions: "I was out there measuring today and the sidewalk is not wide enough in many places. There is not even a buffer between the sidewalk and Hollenbeck. And in some places utility poles are set smack in the middle of the sidewalk."
Meanwhile, staff, without investigating the conditions "was a bit surprised by input received at the Neighborhood Meeting. Apparently some parents feel that it is unacceptable for their children to walk on the sidewalk on Hollenbeck. Using only internal neighborhood streets does add some walking distance to reach the signals at either Danforth or Remington. While staff agrees that it might be preferable to use less traveled streets, it does not think there is anything wrong with students walking on the Hollenbeck sidewalks. Admittedly, a very unusual accident can occur anywhere, but walking on a sidewalk adjacent to a vertical curb on a street with Hollenbeck's relatively slow speeds does not seem inherently unsafe."
Thus staff was more than willing to adhere by rules and manuals but not to take a little effort to see current conditions. (And if utility poles blocked Hollenbeck itself reducing it to a total of one 7 foot wide lane, would they have noticed that?
In this case a full time light may not be justified. (It may actually be preferable to have a non-signaled interchange to limit 'waiting' for a light. However, that was never mentioned in the report.
Similarly, the city council had voted not to expand Wolfe/El Camino. In the staff report, a key concern was not letting the intersection fall to "LOS F" which could reduce funding due to Congestion management programs. Nowhere in the report are bicycle or pedestrian concerns covered. (In fact, the only mention of the words is in reference to meetings held by the bicycle and pedestrian committee. They obviously had knowledge of the committee meetings, but did not take them in to account.)
"On the segment of Hollenbeck between Danforth and Remington, the average speed is 32 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 36mph. These are much closer to the posted speed limit than is normally found." The speed limit is 30. There are a number of driveways lining the street, as well as two side streets (Knickerbocker and Harvard) within this area that may bring down the speed. It thus seems clear that the majority of the drivers are speeding - and this is one of the better streets. If fines, are at least sufficient to cover enforcement cost, the road could be made safer with no net cost to taxpayers.
Regarding removing parking at the Harvard/Hollenbeck intersection, staff objected that "Individual residences front onto Hollenbeck. The removal of parking would probably cause a hardship or inconvenience to these residents. The greater concern is whether the City should take action that might encourage pedestrian crossings at this location." Thus its more important to preserve unused free parking than to provide facilities for pedestrians. Alas, they had no study to determine the demand for free parking on the street. Based on the use (or lack thereof), the hardship would be that somebody would be required to park their car in the driveway instead of the street. And in the worst case, they may have to walk at most an extra hundred feet to their parked vehicle. Meanwhile, staff's preferred alternative is to require pedestrians to walk an extra 1250 feet to Remmington or Danforth. (Walking a few feet is a great hardship for drivers, but a 1000 feet is ideal for pedestrians.
Another interesting bit was the use of traffic "warrants" to justify the placement of a signal. They use the current pedestrian counts to say that a signal is not justified. However, elsewhere, they object to enhancements that might increase pedestrian crossings. IF the enhancement would increase the number of crossings, shouldn't this estimated increase be used as the basis of the pedestrian count? And if it is really a goal to encourage the environmental, economic and health benefits of pedestrians as opposed to automobiles, shouldn't they take priority over cars through movement.
In the end, the city council barely rejected adding a traffic light by a 4-3 vote.
It is interesting to compare the statement from a city council member to that of the staff report. The council member investigated the conditions: "I was out there measuring today and the sidewalk is not wide enough in many places. There is not even a buffer between the sidewalk and Hollenbeck. And in some places utility poles are set smack in the middle of the sidewalk."
Meanwhile, staff, without investigating the conditions "was a bit surprised by input received at the Neighborhood Meeting. Apparently some parents feel that it is unacceptable for their children to walk on the sidewalk on Hollenbeck. Using only internal neighborhood streets does add some walking distance to reach the signals at either Danforth or Remington. While staff agrees that it might be preferable to use less traveled streets, it does not think there is anything wrong with students walking on the Hollenbeck sidewalks. Admittedly, a very unusual accident can occur anywhere, but walking on a sidewalk adjacent to a vertical curb on a street with Hollenbeck's relatively slow speeds does not seem inherently unsafe."
Thus staff was more than willing to adhere by rules and manuals but not to take a little effort to see current conditions. (And if utility poles blocked Hollenbeck itself reducing it to a total of one 7 foot wide lane, would they have noticed that?
In this case a full time light may not be justified. (It may actually be preferable to have a non-signaled interchange to limit 'waiting' for a light. However, that was never mentioned in the report.
Similarly, the city council had voted not to expand Wolfe/El Camino. In the staff report, a key concern was not letting the intersection fall to "LOS F" which could reduce funding due to Congestion management programs. Nowhere in the report are bicycle or pedestrian concerns covered. (In fact, the only mention of the words is in reference to meetings held by the bicycle and pedestrian committee. They obviously had knowledge of the committee meetings, but did not take them in to account.)
Monday, July 24, 2006
Housing report card?
The Bay Area Council of Governments "Housing Report Card" got a lot of press recently. However, it was remarkably devoid of any useful data. In the report card, they assigned a letter grade to the Bay Area, the counties, and cities based on each meeting its needed housing target. Never were they clear how the housing target was calculated. (I searched through the entire report and never saw a clear formula or definition.) There data was also suspect, with Sunnyvale even disputing the housing target. And even if the data and methodology were accurate, the validity of the goal is suspect.
A city may get an "A" for meeting 150% of its target for housing. But what good does that do if the jobs are all in another city 50 miles away? Housing should be available close to jobs. A new housing development in northeastern Santa Clara does a better job of providing for jobs in Northern Sunnyvale than does a location in southwestern Sunnyvale. Are the housing report cards just making traffic worse?
Better targets would include density and proximity to jobs.
A city may get an "A" for meeting 150% of its target for housing. But what good does that do if the jobs are all in another city 50 miles away? Housing should be available close to jobs. A new housing development in northeastern Santa Clara does a better job of providing for jobs in Northern Sunnyvale than does a location in southwestern Sunnyvale. Are the housing report cards just making traffic worse?
Better targets would include density and proximity to jobs.
Bureaucratic = Car by default
I saw a copy of the "Borregas bridge plan". It contained 100s of pages describing a plan to build two simple pedestrian bridges to reconnect what had once been a continuous road. In it were a number of pages of the 'researcher' trying to find information on any nearby Indian burial site. Sure it may be worthwhile to identify those sites to prevent disturbing them. However, it may be a little late. The freeway is already in existence, and the road had been there many years prior. However, perhaps there are some important sites 15 feet in the air that may be disturbed by the new bridge. Yes that could be a legitimate concern.
However, what would happen if they found some sites on the ground there? Would they actually shut down the freeways? Or would they demolish a few homes to reroute the freeway around those sites?
The great freeway project has been built. It cut off the access for the street. Now to restore access it takes years, millions of dollars, and mounds of senseless paperwork. If only they would get it right the first time...
However, what would happen if they found some sites on the ground there? Would they actually shut down the freeways? Or would they demolish a few homes to reroute the freeway around those sites?
The great freeway project has been built. It cut off the access for the street. Now to restore access it takes years, millions of dollars, and mounds of senseless paperwork. If only they would get it right the first time...
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Jaywalking - A safety necessity
In order to cross Fremont Ave. near Fremont High school in Sunnyvale, there are two main ways to cross.
Crossing Fremont:
1) 'jaywalking'. Cross two lanes of traffic. Then wait on extra-wide landscape median. Then cross two more lanes of traffic. A pedestrian only has to cross two lanes of uncontrolled traffic at a time.
1.5) There is also a crosswalk available - the condition ends up somewhat similar to the jaywalking position, though without the comfortable median, and closer to the intersection, thus reducing the ability to see as much traffic.
2) 'Crossing at an intersection'. At the intersection of Sunnyvale-Saratoga and Fremont there is no median, so the entire street must be crossed at once. There is a right turn lane, three through lanes, 2 left turn lanes, a through lane, and an extra-large through lane. A total of 8 lanes. If a pedestrian must push the button and then wait until the start of the next light cycle. The green pedestrian 'walk' light will light up for a few seconds followed by the flashing don't walk. (If the pedestrian pushes the button after the light starts, they will have to wait for the next cycle.) The walk signal means that the through traffic and left turn traffic will not be in conflict. However, right turn traffic will still present a conflict. The Sunnyvale-Saratoga right turn traffic has a green light, while the Fremont right-turn traffic can make a right turn on red. This leaves 2 lanes in conflict.
Crossing at the 'official' location requires crossing 8 lanes at once, with two 'conflict' lanes. 'Jaywalking' requires crossing 2 lanes of traffic at a time, still with only 2 'conflict' lanes. Crossing at the 'official' locations gives the pedestrian a narrow interval of a few seconds every few minutes when they can cross. A 'jaywalking' pedestrian can cross at any time they feel safe. Crossing at midblock, pedestrians can see traffic for a distance and cross when safe. Crossing at the intersection, turning traffic can appear without being seen.
Intersections are engineered to maximize auto traffic. The number of traffic lanes may double at an intersection to maximize automobile throughput. However, this also makes it a greater burden for pedestrian crossing. The signals are also optimized for automobile traffic. Pedestrian walk signals only appear if a pedestrian presses a button before a signal cycle. Even if there will be a minute remaining on the cycle, a late press of the button will not bring a walk signal. (The signal needs to keep its options open for auto traffic.) A two minute through light, may only produce a pedestrian walk signal for a couple seconds, followed by 20 seconds of flashing don't walk, and then sold don't walk. If the cycle is going to be 2 minutes, why is the pedestrian light only for a few seconds? Why doesn't the walk signal last for 1 minute 40 seconds? And if the signal will easily last long enough for pedestrians to walk, why doesn't it just automatically put the walk signal on without pressing a button? The flashing "don't walk" is also the primary time to cross. Imagine if traffic lights for cars behaved similarly, with a 2 second green followed by a 20 second yellow.
And poor engineering at intersections is only another part of the reason why jaywalking is a pedestrian necessity. A location may have a curb cut for cars to enter a parking lot. Why not pedestrians? That implies a crossing location, and pedestrians have a desire to cross just as cars do. Furthermore, a pedestrian may move at 3 miles per hour, while a car at 30. A pedestrian taking a detour of 1/4 mile to get to the intersection to cross would be the equivalent of a car going 2.5 miles out of its way (just to pull a u-turn to go back the same distance)
Crossing Fremont:
1) 'jaywalking'. Cross two lanes of traffic. Then wait on extra-wide landscape median. Then cross two more lanes of traffic. A pedestrian only has to cross two lanes of uncontrolled traffic at a time.
1.5) There is also a crosswalk available - the condition ends up somewhat similar to the jaywalking position, though without the comfortable median, and closer to the intersection, thus reducing the ability to see as much traffic.
2) 'Crossing at an intersection'. At the intersection of Sunnyvale-Saratoga and Fremont there is no median, so the entire street must be crossed at once. There is a right turn lane, three through lanes, 2 left turn lanes, a through lane, and an extra-large through lane. A total of 8 lanes. If a pedestrian must push the button and then wait until the start of the next light cycle. The green pedestrian 'walk' light will light up for a few seconds followed by the flashing don't walk. (If the pedestrian pushes the button after the light starts, they will have to wait for the next cycle.) The walk signal means that the through traffic and left turn traffic will not be in conflict. However, right turn traffic will still present a conflict. The Sunnyvale-Saratoga right turn traffic has a green light, while the Fremont right-turn traffic can make a right turn on red. This leaves 2 lanes in conflict.
Crossing at the 'official' location requires crossing 8 lanes at once, with two 'conflict' lanes. 'Jaywalking' requires crossing 2 lanes of traffic at a time, still with only 2 'conflict' lanes. Crossing at the 'official' locations gives the pedestrian a narrow interval of a few seconds every few minutes when they can cross. A 'jaywalking' pedestrian can cross at any time they feel safe. Crossing at midblock, pedestrians can see traffic for a distance and cross when safe. Crossing at the intersection, turning traffic can appear without being seen.
Intersections are engineered to maximize auto traffic. The number of traffic lanes may double at an intersection to maximize automobile throughput. However, this also makes it a greater burden for pedestrian crossing. The signals are also optimized for automobile traffic. Pedestrian walk signals only appear if a pedestrian presses a button before a signal cycle. Even if there will be a minute remaining on the cycle, a late press of the button will not bring a walk signal. (The signal needs to keep its options open for auto traffic.) A two minute through light, may only produce a pedestrian walk signal for a couple seconds, followed by 20 seconds of flashing don't walk, and then sold don't walk. If the cycle is going to be 2 minutes, why is the pedestrian light only for a few seconds? Why doesn't the walk signal last for 1 minute 40 seconds? And if the signal will easily last long enough for pedestrians to walk, why doesn't it just automatically put the walk signal on without pressing a button? The flashing "don't walk" is also the primary time to cross. Imagine if traffic lights for cars behaved similarly, with a 2 second green followed by a 20 second yellow.
And poor engineering at intersections is only another part of the reason why jaywalking is a pedestrian necessity. A location may have a curb cut for cars to enter a parking lot. Why not pedestrians? That implies a crossing location, and pedestrians have a desire to cross just as cars do. Furthermore, a pedestrian may move at 3 miles per hour, while a car at 30. A pedestrian taking a detour of 1/4 mile to get to the intersection to cross would be the equivalent of a car going 2.5 miles out of its way (just to pull a u-turn to go back the same distance)
Friday, June 23, 2006
Spare the air? Or make it worse?
Thursday and Friday were "Spare the air" days in the bay area. The air pollution was bad, and people were 'encouraged' not to drive. To help "spare the air", rides on almost every transit system (minus Vallejo) was free.
Unfortunately, this may have done more to harm the air than spare it.
From the air quality forecasts, the East Bay and Santa Clara valley had critical high pollution. The coastal areas (including San Francisco) were barely outside of 'good' range, while the peninsula and north bay were in moderate range.
San Francisco has the most trips that would be easily accessible by transit. The peninsula also has a large number of jobs that are somewhat transit accessible (many with a 'shuttle bus').
Cars produce most of their pollution in the first few minutes after starting up. There are also evaporative emissions produced for the first few hours after being parked, which are especially problematic for ozone. So, if people stayed home and didn't drive at all, this would have helped greatly.
However, many of the Bay Area transit systems offer free parking. BART has vast parking lots, primarily in the easy bay valleys. The parking is free at nearly all East Bay stations. VTA also has a large amount of free parking - primarily in the southern Santa Clara valley. Caltrain also has free parking at the stations in far southern Santa Clara county. These areas with free parking neatly coincide with the areas that have the highest pollution alerts.
And the destinations for most of these riders? San Francisco would be the primary destination for most BART riders. SFO or Oakland may also appear. For VTA, downtown San Jose, or the peninsula, while for Caltrain, primarily San Francisco. If these people were switching from driving to park and ride + transit, they successfully reduced pollution in the best areas while adding it to the worst. And this assumes that people were planning on driving any way. Were many of these people merely using free transit as a means to joy ride? If they were doing this, while at the same time driving to the station, they added additional pollution that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.
If they were serious about pollution, why not close down gasoline sales during the hot time of day? Or close down freeways? Or prevent use of gas powered lawn equipment?
Unfortunately, this may have done more to harm the air than spare it.
From the air quality forecasts, the East Bay and Santa Clara valley had critical high pollution. The coastal areas (including San Francisco) were barely outside of 'good' range, while the peninsula and north bay were in moderate range.
San Francisco has the most trips that would be easily accessible by transit. The peninsula also has a large number of jobs that are somewhat transit accessible (many with a 'shuttle bus').
Cars produce most of their pollution in the first few minutes after starting up. There are also evaporative emissions produced for the first few hours after being parked, which are especially problematic for ozone. So, if people stayed home and didn't drive at all, this would have helped greatly.
However, many of the Bay Area transit systems offer free parking. BART has vast parking lots, primarily in the easy bay valleys. The parking is free at nearly all East Bay stations. VTA also has a large amount of free parking - primarily in the southern Santa Clara valley. Caltrain also has free parking at the stations in far southern Santa Clara county. These areas with free parking neatly coincide with the areas that have the highest pollution alerts.
And the destinations for most of these riders? San Francisco would be the primary destination for most BART riders. SFO or Oakland may also appear. For VTA, downtown San Jose, or the peninsula, while for Caltrain, primarily San Francisco. If these people were switching from driving to park and ride + transit, they successfully reduced pollution in the best areas while adding it to the worst. And this assumes that people were planning on driving any way. Were many of these people merely using free transit as a means to joy ride? If they were doing this, while at the same time driving to the station, they added additional pollution that wouldn't have occurred otherwise.
If they were serious about pollution, why not close down gasoline sales during the hot time of day? Or close down freeways? Or prevent use of gas powered lawn equipment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)