Oberstar’s Transportation Bill: The Early Word
Policy wonks across the capital are still poring over the 775-page bill released earlier today by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. But searching the legislation for the key topics being debated by transportation reformers reveals new details and raises new questions. The most common phrase in the bill may well be three innocuous words: "to be supplied." This is in no small part thanks to the uncertain future of funding for Oberstar's $450 billion plan, a problem compounded by a White House preoccupied with health care and in no mood to raise the gas tax. Continue reading »
Dana Gabbard
The SO.CA.TA informal exploration of the 632 will start at Patsaouras Transit Plaza, bay 5 at 4 p.m. on Friday July 10th. Members of the public are welcome to join us. Be sure to have a Metro pass or bring change for the applicable fare. We likely will stop along the way to eat at a restaurant near one of the stops.
BTYW, the page on the Metro website has been updated to reflect the changes that start Monday. But the link to it on the website has been pulled, maybe because the map has yet to be adjusted...
http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/bus_overview/line_632.htm
in response to Today's Headlines
Dana Gabbard
"As long as it takes 7 votes to get anything passed, this will remain a board run by the Mayor, regardless of whether he has the gavel or not."
How does the Mayor and three appointees equal seven votes? That sure is faulty math. If anything the Supervisors with the City Selection appointees are a more decisive block of votes.
Calwatch, I too am curious whether any move toward changing the FAP for dividing funds among the include/eligible transit operators makes any headway. My guess will be no, especially when funding is a dicey situation anyway.
Dan W., the residents along the Chandler ROW between N. Hollywood and Burbank already have complaints about the bike path there. I am sure Najarian realizes even a hint of a rail project there would cause huge pushback by the NIMBYs.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
Nancy
That should be Montgomery County, Maryland, and yes, Mr. Sullivan is a kook. He spends his free time videotaping recreational cyclists not coming to complete stops at rural intersections. This is clearly a threat to the safety of Hummer, Jaguar, BMW and Mercedes drivers and the American way of life!
in response to Have Red Light Speed Cameras Saved Lives in Virginia?
Wad
Damien Goodmon wrote:
Wake me when the apathetic public gets off their fricking couches and starts an uprising.
The Lakers would have to win the championships again next year.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
ubrayj02
Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?
Jewish groups need safe streets (for walking to temple).
The mayor is an honorary Jew (trips to Israel, etc.).
The mayor needs to be in favor of more walkable streets, or he is a hypocrite and an enemy of the Jewish people!
Huzzah! Hassidic Walking Alliance anyone? Hwa hwa hwa.
in response to Fairfax: Ped. Friendly, Bus Friendly and Bike Friendly
Wad
John von Kerczek wrote:
If I were to ask for one thing it would be a direct bus connection between Hollywood and LAX via Fairfax. Perhaps with the opening of the Expo, the 439, instead of heading Downtown via the 10, could instead be redirected up Fairfax into Hollywood.
How much demand would there be for such a service?
You can kind of do it if you took 210 or 212/312 to the Green Line, took the train to Aviation and took the shuttle bus.
Also, you've probably noticed that Metro has been getting away from frequent trunk-infrequent branch service in the past few years (i.e. Olympic). Line 439 is hourly, and for the few riders in Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights, it would make the bus more unreliable because of the ridership and traffic on Fairfax that would cause it to be late down the line.
in response to Fairfax: Ped. Friendly, Bus Friendly and Bike Friendly
cph
That might work if you're traveling to/from Bakersfield (the "Wasco Trick") but there's nothing to indicate that Amtrak California might start allowing local travel on the buses (such as between Claremont and Ontario Airport). They *could*, though.
in response to Looking for a Transit Friendly Community? Try Claremont
calwatch
Of course, in one of the fastest about faces for the MTA that I have ever seen, MTA has decided to cancel the Gold Line emulator east of Indiana Station, forcing riders onto the Montebello Line 40. So the line has effectively been neutered and will not go to East LA.
in response to Today's Headlines
Wad
The way around the bus-only Amtrak trip is to book a train trip to the next immediate stop. Just don't ride the train.
in response to Looking for a Transit Friendly Community? Try Claremont
FixHighways
Wake me up when people get off their soapboxes.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
Wad
I'm sure Najarian supports such a project, but how much sway he has in a single year to get the project ahead is another matter.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
Dan Wentzel
Before Waxman's bill stopped the subway from going into his district back in the 1980's, the original north/south route was apparently Fairfax, not Vermont.
One alternative for a northern extension of the Crenshaw Line would run it up Fairfax or La Cienega.
in response to Fairfax: Ped. Friendly, Bus Friendly and Bike Friendly
John von Kerczek
I live a bit further up at Fairfax & Santa Monica in West Hollywood, but I definitely love the transit and pedestrian accessibility of the Fairfax corridor. Every intersection between Sunset and Olympic has something to offer - and they are all accessible via the 217 and 780 Metro buses.
If I were to ask for one thing it would be a direct bus connection between Hollywood and LAX via Fairfax. Perhaps with the opening of the Expo, the 439, instead of heading Downtown via the 10, could instead be redirected up Fairfax into Hollywood.
in response to Fairfax: Ped. Friendly, Bus Friendly and Bike Friendly
Rosemary
Wow! Thanks for the awesome shout out! :)
in response to Welcome to the Blogroll: Booking it Bus Style
Erik G.
A couple of other Wilshire corridor services:
The newish FlyAway bus from Westwood to LLAX
The even newer AmtrakCalifornia bus from Westwood to Van Nuys train station connecting to northbound Surfliners going to Santa Barbara.
in response to Dana Gabbard: Why My Community Is the Best for Transit
Erik G.
I'm a little late, but the author neglected to mention that Amtrak California runs 8 buses a day (4 Roundtrips) from Claremont to Bakersfield to connect with the San Joaquin trains. I have hear that the stop in Ontario might be moved to Ontario Airport. Now if the stupid Perata law concerning local travel on Amtrak California buses could be lifted, then there would be additional opportunities for travel from Pasadena to Claremont, Ontario (airport?) San Bernardino and on to Palm Spring.
Claremont also has a Greyhound station, but good luck figuring out what buses run where these days on the crappy Greyhound.com website.
in response to Looking for a Transit Friendly Community? Try Claremont
Dan W.
I'd be interested in hearing if Najarian supports a rail project that connects the North Hollywood Station with the Gold Line via Burbank and Glendale and how he would connect the Burbank Airport into the system. Of course, the former would be pretty low on the totem pole right now.
Or run some short-run trains just between the Burbank Airport and downtown.
I remember him being pretty unselfish about Measure R since there wasn't a Glendale project on the list.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
cph
I grew up in the Claremont/La Verne Area during the 1980's....
Back then, mostly I rode a bike. Oh, there were certain streets I wouldn't
use, due to lack of shoulders. But for the most part, I had no problems riding around La Verne, San Dimas, Claremont and parts of Pomona.
I wasn't particularly aware of transit until 1984, and at the time, what little was out in the area was a joke. Only 2 RTD lines served Claremont; both wrapped up service around 7 pm and neither ran on weekends. (I remember reading a newspaper article complaining about the lack of RTD service, and advocating that Omnitrans extend service from San Bernardino County to Claremont!)
Things have improved markedly since then. Now Downtown Claremont is a major transit hub, and there is frequent service over to Montclair for trips into
San Bernardino County. Not everything is perfect: the Silver Streak skips Claremont (and doesn't do a particularly good job east of West Covina, in my opinion). And I miss good, all-day express bus service from Montclair to Riverside and San Bernardino. But I'll take what we have now, and hope for improvement.
in response to Looking for a Transit Friendly Community? Try Claremont
Damien Goodmon
As long as it takes 7 votes to get anything passed, this will remain a board run by the Mayor, regardless of whether he has the gavel or not.
And the 60 second rule is ridiculous and insulting. But what makes it even worse is that they don't allow members of the public to give away their time. It's very difficult to near impossible to make a point about an important issue in just 60 seconds. If they were really interested in the public's opinion each person would get 3-5 mins. I understand that could be difficult, but to go down to 60 second AND not allow people to give away their time - well it is a clear expression of the board's overall lack of concern for the public.
And all the meetings need to moved to the night/late hours, with public comment at the opening AND closing. L.A. is the only place I know of where every major government body meets during the day: City Council, Board of Supervisors, major boards/commission, etc. Of course it's intentional.
Wake me when the apathetic public gets off their fricking couches and starts an uprising.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
Spokker
Rename ourselves The Republic of California and pretend to be a developing country. Oh wait, we don't have to pretend anymore, ha.
in response to Court Orders California to Stop Robbing Transit (Updated)
limit
I am curious about his future input on the proposed 710 tunnel that may outlet to the edge of Glendale. From a regional perspective it has massive impact for the region and minimal impact for Glendale. However, from a Glendale NIMBY perspective it is outrageous.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
calwatch
The 60 second rule is not going anywhere, because MTA board members don't really want to be there. If you notice the disturbing frequency that they wander off to the lounge to shoot the breeze or chat with their staff members, you'd know that. The faster than can get John Walsh off the podium, the better - damned the collateral damage.
One of the more interesting things with Najarian as chair is whether he will try to push for more funding for the local, non-included operators. There is a complicated formula that divvies up public transportation funding and basically all the transit agencies that started before 1980 get a share of it, while everyone after 1980 doesn't. Glendale Beeline is bigger than Commerce and Gardena now, yet Gardena and Commerce get money that Glendale and Pasadena don't. Of course, the incumbent operators have an incentive to oppose any changes to this. Still, Najarian snuck a motion when developing the budget to evaluate expanding the scope of "included" operators to include more agencies. It will be interesting if he can convince the rest of the Board to go along with this.
in response to Glendale City Councilman Najarian Takes Over as Metro Board Chair
calwatch
On the other hand, as a counter point my mom has commuted to work via bicycle for some time. She doesn't arrive to work sweaty because she rides at a moderate speed, basically using the time to relax. The distance to work for her is roughly five miles. Of course, she works in the garment industry anyway, so even if she was sweaty it wouldn't matter if you are stitching clothes.
I've never felt much of a connection between her and the bicycling community The bicycles she use are essentially disposable bicycles purchased on sale from the Evil Mega-Mart (tm), which the organized bicycling community frowns upon greatly. There is less investment involved so when it does inevitably get stolen, she isn't out hundreds or thousands of dollars. She rides at a slow enough speed to ride on the sidewalk, again which attracts the ire of the cycling community. I've given her a helmet before, and she doesn't use it.
In reality, you see hundreds, if not thousands, of people, mostly immigrants, riding bicycles to work today in my community. The stigma of bicycling for women is no different than the stigma of walking for women, especially late at night. Although there are safety concerns, they are greater than they actually appear, and are reduced significantly if you don't get into the vehicles of strangers. Maybe we are all Southern gentlemen and think that ladies should never have to walk long distances, carry anything, or open a door themselves. The women themselves have to rise above the "stigma" that society, and to some extent they themselves, have created for them (ever been in a factory breakroom and hear conversations about why "the boyfriend" makes the woman ride the bus to work?)
Looking at the comments on the Treehugger article, I have to concur with many of them that found the article condescending and patronizing.
in response to Streetsblog.net Mind the Gender Gap
calwatch
"Business district", however, has a specific definition in CVC 235, which excludes most suburban-style shopping districts with parking in front of the business.
"A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the
property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a
distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property
fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b)
upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of
300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting
thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the
distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings
in use for business to the length of the highway exists."
The other thing is that in order for radar enforcement to occur, an Engineering and Traffic Survey must be conducted, per the anti-speed trap law, CVC 40802. The only exception is for "local streets", which are defined more narrowly than above. Otherwise, the only mechanism of enforcement is pacing or visual observation, which is more prone to error.
The anti-speed trap law is a good thing. It prevents little corrupt towns like West Covina back in the early part of this century, or more recently new Rome, Ohio, from using commuters and visitors as revenue generators. (I, and transportation expert Tom Rubin, discuss the anti-speed trap law in more detail here: http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/20/explanation-of-rising-speed-limits-the-public-votes-with-the-gas-pedal/ ) If you want to lower travel speed, you need to lower design speed through traffic calming, not through the posting of arbitrary signs.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Wad
California's only choice now is to be the recipient of an IMF structural adjustment package.
in response to Court Orders California to Stop Robbing Transit (Updated)
Erik G.
It has always stunned me how much of a barrier the Hudson River is to commuters, not just as a river but as a bureaucratic boundary that seemingly only the PANYNJ can cross.
I notice many projects that should offer better connections between New Jersey and New York City:
Hudson Bergen Light Rail which has no bus connection to Staten Island.
NYCMTA 7 train which is being extended west to Javitz Center with no thought to extending on to New Jersey. If you've got the tunneling equipment in the hole, why not push on under the Hudson?
Why can't NJTransit trains continue out through to the LIRR lines? (And vice-versa)
Why isn't the PATH line to World Trade Center being hooked up to some NYC Subway line so that throught trains could operate?
New York/New Jersey have a lot of work to do on its apparent inability to work together as does NYC Transit on being able to make the last mile to connect, even if it means leaving the city limits.
in response to Streetfilms Illustrates the Need for More Bus-Only Lanes
LA MapNerd
Yes, those are the fastest and most dangerous drivers - but they're not the ones setting the speed limit.
If the slowest 85% of the traffic - the slower and less dangerous drivers - are all doing less than 38 mph, that's what sets the speed limit to 35 (or, optionally, 30). How fast the fastest 15% are going isn't a factor.
They could all be doing 38 mph - or they could be doing 45, or 55, or 85 - it doesn't matter. No matter how fast the top 15% goes, the speed limit is set by the speed of the botton 85%.
And I don't think that's "splitting hairs." The fastest drivers aren't the ones setting the limit.
As in your "pedestrian corridor" example, it doesn't matter how many of the fastest 15% "race by at 50" - the limit can still be set at 35 mph if the slowest 85% of the traffic is doing 42 mph or less.
And bear in mind that this rule only applies to "non-statutory" speed limits. All jurisdictions have statutory authority to set the speed limit as low as 25 mph in any "business or residential distict" (except on state highways), with no engineering survey whatsoever. (See CVC Sec. 22352, "Prima Facie Speed Limits".)
Since almost all "pedestrian corridors" are either business or residential districts, this rule really isn't an issue in terms of pedestrian safety (except possibly on state highways).
(And any state highway where more than 15% of the traffic is going 43 mph or faster probably does need to have a speed limit higher than 35 - even if there are pedestrians in the area.)
This just isn't the dire threat to pedestrian and cyclist safety you're trying to make it out to be, IMO.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
DJB
This is nice in a way, but it's also like finding a quarter on the deck of a sinking ship . . . with no lifeboats.
CA is screwed because it takes a 2/3 majority to raise most taxes, and there isn't political support in the state legislature to make the cuts necessary to balance budgets without tax increases.
We need to change the state constitution or endure even more decades of fiscal insanity from Sacramento. Or should I say, from ourselves, since we passed Prop. 13 in 1978 (well, not me, but you get the idea).
in response to Court Orders California to Stop Robbing Transit (Updated)
Damien Newton
Mapnerd and Armen,
I rechecked the document and I posted and you are correct. Reading it today, I'm not sure how I got the impression that the traffic engineers had to round up; but I've corrected the text and used the "crossout" function to that anyone reading the article will know why you were correcting me in the bottom. I regret the error.
That being said, I think you're splitting hairs with the distinction between "top fifteen percent" and "bottom 85 percent." I guess you're objecting to the language that the "fastest drivers will be setting the speed limit," because you read that as me saying the cars at the very top, like the 1% of fastest drivers, are setting the limit. To me, cars that are in the top fifteen percent, if they're breaking the speed limit are the "fastest and most dangerous drivers," and that's the point I was trying to make.
Last, the CVC does allow for engineers to take into account bike/ped and other issues. That is what allows the optional 5 mile per hour reduction that local DOT's can take. It does not allow municipalities to say things such as "this is a high pedestrian corridor, we need to keep the speed limit at 35 mph" even if cars race past it at 50 mph.
Ultimately, I think Ubrayj is correct. What we really need is better designed streets and the speed limits will follow that. However, that being said the CVC and state law treat all roads the same and that leads to dangerous streets in L.A. and other cities that have wildly different circumstances than roads in smaller rural communities.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Emily Rusch
The court case victory halting the legislature's raid on public transit funds indicates how lost Californians' priorities become in Sacramento's budget mess. To cut traffic congestion and harmful pollution, California needs more public transportation. Recent ballot measure victories, including the passage of Measure R in Los Angeles, highlight that voters are willing to pay higher taxes to build it.
Furthermore, there are solutions to balance the budget and pay for public transportation, including taxing oil companies, just like Texas and Alaska already do. But to date Sacramento has chosen to protect the oil companies and punish transit riders.
Governor Schwarzenegger should support a budget that taxes oil companies to help pay for public transportation and other needs. Fellow Republican Gov. Sarah Palin does it. So should California.
Emily Rusch is the State Director of the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG).
in response to Court Orders California to Stop Robbing Transit (Updated)
Damien Goodmon
Subway trains continue running every two minutes (every minute during rush-hours)
Sure as heck can't do that with at-grade crossings in L.A.
Get LA Moving
in response to From Russia, with Transit Love
LA MapNerd
[Ack. The angle brackets confused the blog's HTML parser, and it ate several pieces of that post. Here, let me try that again.]
No, that's not what the rule says.
It says:
******
When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 10km/h (5mph) increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, except as shown in the Option below [emphasis added]
******
...and it gives specific examples:
******
An example of the application of this speed limit criteria is as follows:
* If the 85th percentile speed in speed survey was 60 km/h (37 mph), then the speed limit would be posted at 35 mph or optionally reduced to 30 mph. However,
* If the 85th percentile speed in speed survey was 61 km/h (38 mph), then the speed limit would be posted at 40 mph or optionally reduced to 35 mph.
******
Further, Armen is correct. The behavior of the fastest 15% of drivers is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how fast they go. What matters is how fast the slowest 85% go.
So if 85% of the drivers are doing 37 mph or less, the limit can be set to 35 mph, or optionally, to 30 mph if an Engineering & Traffic Survey justifies the lower limit.
And, contrary to the second paragraph of your post, where you say:
...the definition of Engineering and Traffic Survey in CVC 627 specifically says:
******
When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities [...] may consider all of the following:
(1) Residential density [...]
(2) Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
******
So you're wrong on three counts here: it's the nearest 5mph interval to the 85th percentile, not "automatically the next highest"; how fast the top 15% of speeders are going is utterly irrelevant, not what determines the limit; and local authorities can and do consider pedestrian and cyclist safety in the Engineering & Traffic Surveys that are used used to justify the optional 5 mph reduction.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
LA MapNerd
No, that's not what the rule says.
It says:
>>>>
When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 10km/h (5mph) increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic, except as shown in the Option below [emphasis added]
<<<>>>
An example of the application of this speed limit criteria is as follows:
* If the 85th percentile speed in speed survey was 60 km/h (37 mph), then the speed limit would be posted at 35 mph or optionally reduced to 30 mph. However,
* If the 85th percentile speed in speed survey was 61 km/h (38 mph), then the speed limit would be posted at 40 mph or optionally reduced to 35 mph.
<<<<
Further, Armen is correct. The behavior of the fastest 15% of drivers is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how fast they go. What matters is how fast the slowest 85% go.
So if 85% of the drivers are doing 37 mph or less, the limit can be set to 35 mph, or optionally, to 30 mph if an Engineering & Traffic Survey justifies the lower limit.
And, contrary to the second paragraph of your post, where you say:
...the definition of Engineering and Traffic Survey in CVC 627 specifically says:
>>>>
When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities [...] may consider all of the following:
(1) Residential density [...]
(2) Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
<<<<
So you're wrong on three counts here: it's the nearest 5mph interval to the 85th percentile, not "automatically the next highest"; how fast the top 15% of speeders are going is utterly irrelevant, not what determines the limit; and local authorities can and do consider pedestrian and cyclist safety in the Engineering & Traffic Surveys that are used used to justify the optional 5 mph reduction.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Jessica
for reals? how about the idea that in the US we have been planning for bicycling for men 20-45. For the most part, planning for riders who tend to be recreation cyclists, and have no fear - it does not appear to me at all that bike planning since the 70's has been about transportation. The powerful lobby of vehicular cyclists and John Forrestor school of thought, and the car, has made limitations on who cycles not based on gender but based on comfort level, and willingness to ride in (sometimes hardcore) traffic.
How about bike planning for all riders - young, old, whoever - so that some of our trips (1/2 of which are under 5 miles) can be taken by people who want to bike and doesn't require tons of bravery. In my perspective, safety issues – whether perceived or real – is what is keeping people from using their bike as transportation – not fashion. Lack of planning and investment in safe streets for all modes is what is keeping people from using their bike as transportation.
So many people realize the wonders of bicycle as a means of transportation - from all backgrounds - I'd love to see more diversity in our perspectives as a whole in transportation.
Liked this statement on 50 car pile up blog, "I’d prefer to read blogs that actually dig a little into transportation policy and politics." Totally – and about the impacts of transportation on our communities. wow, this kinda really got my blood boiling (and I did wear a skirt on my ride to work today - hah!)
in response to Streetsblog.net Mind the Gender Gap
Armen
I think you misunderstand the way the math works. If 15% of people are driving 6mph over the limit (while the rest are doing the limit or below), the law does not allow for any speed limit change. That's not how the 85th percentile calculation works.
The speed limit gets set at whatever limit captures the behavior of 85% of motorists, not the other 15%. If 85% of drivers are driving no more than 35mph on a road, the limit will be 35mph.
If no more than 15% of drivers on a road are driving 50mph, with let's say the rest coming in at 47 or under, then the limit would be 45mph.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
RussRoca
Here's that video of riding through 2nd Street when it is at capacity. Who's slowing who down?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecaEo4pJeqE
in response to Sharrow Cam Tells the Story of Long Beach's Green Shared Lane
DJB
It takes time for new regulations to have an effect, time we don't really have if we want to head off the worst effects of climate change. The CA regulations say 35.5 MPG on average by 2016 (I believe this is for cars by the way, not trucks and SUVs). Even by 2016 it's not like all cars on the road are going to magically get 35.5 MPG overnight. It takes time for the existing fleet be replaced by new vehicles.
Furthermore, CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) is an average. There is no guarantee that consumers will decide to buy the cars that get at or above average fuel economy. They might prefer the cars that are below average. Given that this is America, where horsepower still tends to be more important to people than the environment, I'd say that's pretty likely.
By contrast, raising gasoline taxes has immediate and long term benefits. Everybody has an immediate incentive to drive less (which reduces pollution and strengthens other modes of transportation) when gasoline is more expensive, no matter what they drive. When they buy a new car, truck, or SUV they will be more likely to think about the cost of gas.
If we really expect to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 to stop climate change, we're going to have to get serious and figure out how to build the will to make gasoline more expensive. Raising CAFE is a start, but I fear it won't be enough.
in response to EPA Okays Stronger Auto Emissions Standards Now in CA, 13 Other States
DJB
As important as this is to foster the development of more efficient cars, like plug-in hybrids, and electric cars, I'm part of the school of thought that says that it would be easier to green the fleet through taxes on the dirty fuel(s) instead of regulations on the average fuel economy of a manufacturer.
If you're bored some time, compare the websites of any car company in the U.S. where gasoline taxes are low, to the same websites in a country like the UK, where gasoline taxes are high. It's like night and day. The cars sold in the UK, even by firms like Ford and GM are much more efficient than the cars sold here.
Raise taxes on gasoline and consumers will make better choices about what cars to buy, or not buy. Just don't ask me how to build the political will :)
in response to EPA Okays Stronger Auto Emissions Standards Now in CA, 13 Other States
Umberto Brayj
An interesting point worth noting:
Russ Roca has a video demonstrating that this road is already performing at an abominable rate of automobile service (with a 5 mph average through the area during normal weekday conditions).
There are plenty of streets in LA where car capacity has hits its ceiling, and adding bikes to the mix does next to nothing to make the road slower for cars. On those most congested streets, the only option (the LADOT) would have us believe is to widen the road, remove parking, and speed up the cars.
In Long Beach, it would appear they have taken the $0 option: let the cars hit capacity, and focus on allowing more people to get through the area using bicycles. This is the cheapest way of increasing the number of people moving on the roads.
So you see, with a bit of twisted logic to match the insane transportation engineers' perspective on roads, we might end up with a good justification for this treatment on hyper-congested roads in LA.
in response to Sharrow Cam Tells the Story of Long Beach's Green Shared Lane
Umberto Brayj
This reminds me of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubrayj02/3677321235/
in response to City Celebrates Groundbreaking of Bike Path Extension in Elysian Valley
Umberto Brayj
Hey, that's great news.
When will Riverside Drive/Crystal Springs Dr. have a lane turned into a 24-hour cycle track from LA to the SFV?
That would cost, I'm guessing, 1/100th of this project, and would likely be safer and a better long-term investment as well.
Sorry to be a negative jerk. This really is a neat thing for recreational cyclists.
in response to City Celebrates Groundbreaking of Bike Path Extension in Elysian Valley
Umberto Brayj
I've thought a bit about this, and this only matters if the local entity designs a roadway (As is typically done) for speeding. There are several steps (inexpensive steps) that can quickly calm traffic in an area, and prevent the triggering of a speed increase.
Booting responsibility for this up to the State, and keeping pressure off of roadway engineering and planning at the local level, is not a recipe for successful protection of pedestrians and other slower moving modes in the right-of-way.
Our roads are designed for speeding, and voila!, we get speeding.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Damien Newton
It would be ten miles above. It's not the closest "5 mph" but automatically the next highest mph. There is a chance for municipalities to take 5 mph off the suggested speed limit, but it's not a given anymore.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Dale
Another possible problem with that third paragraph: if 15% of drivers are driving 6 miles over the speed limit, then the "closest five mile interval" would be 5 miles over the speed limit, not 10 miles. Do you know which one it would be?
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Reina R
Traffic is one of the problem of most vehicle driver. You would be hurrying because you would be late for work. And then you would be caught in the middle of the head heating traffic! We would hit the accelerator to the fullest speed so we won't be late. Then, if this "slowing policy" or what ever you call it would be implemented, what would road life be? Of course, the salary would be deducted because of your lates. Luckily, you can go to a payday lender for a short term personal loan, often with no faxing and some lenders let you apply online and use direct deposit.
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
limit
Weaving, poor grade separations, and overcapacity make roads more dangerous. Locally take the 10/605 interchange or the Littlerock section of the 138 both being worked on by Caltrans but currently quite deadly resecptively for weaving and at grade cross traffic.
in response to Do Shiny New Roads “Only Make Idiots More Dangerous”?
limit
Improved highway repair / maintenance over expansion is where I would have preferred the funds go.
in response to Calpirg, Smart Growth America Slam State Stimulus Spending
limit
I am all for ETS and the setting of speed in such a manner. That is not mutually exclusive of bicycle lanes or proper sharing of the road.
Krekorian bill was far to extreme in that it gave no regard to studies of any kind and tyranny of the minority - local authorities when corrupt...
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
Dale
I don't understand the numbers in the 3rd paragraph. If the speed of the fastest 35% of drivers is what matters, what does that have to do with the 85th percentile?
in response to Caltrans Working Hard to Speed Up Local Streets
angle
The LADOT needs to get a pink slip. Not joking.
in response to Sharrow Cam Tells the Story of Long Beach's Green Shared Lane