The cul-de-sac is perhaps the quintessential symbol of suburban America. Perhaps millions of them have paved over greenways throughout the country. Hailed for their safety (no traffic that can run over kids) and prized by developers because they allow more houses to be built into oddly shaped tracts and right up to the edges of rivers and property lines, planners and town officials are beginning to realize their downside.

Early last year the state of Virginia became the first state to severely limit cul-de-sacs from future development.  Similar actions have been taken in Portland Oregon, Austin, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina. What they are beginning to realize is that the cul-de-sac street grid uses land inefficiently, discourages walking and biking, and causes an almost complete dependence on driving, with attendant pollution and energy use. Furthermore, town officials are beginning to realize that unconnected streets cost more money to provide services to and force traffic onto increasingly crowded arterial roads, which then, in many cases, need to be widened (more tax money).

Two interesting studies were presented at the CNU Transportation Summit in 2008 that examined the public safety and financial implications of street
connectivity.  They both seem to support what critics have begun to voice about the downside of cul-de-sac’s grid networks.  The first study was conducted by Norman Garrick and Wesley Marshall, of the University of Connecticut’s Center for Transportation and Urban Planning.  Their study investigated the relationships between connectivity, network configuration, density, severe vehicle crashes, and mode choice.

 Twenty-four California cities were analyzed at the
block level; half were classified as "safe cites" (severe/fatal crash
rates one-third of the state average), and half as "less safe cities"
(severe/fatal crash rates close to the state average). Interestingly,
the results showed that the safe cities were well established prior to
1950; the less safe cities were largely developed after that time. Even
within the safe cities, the changes in street network patterns over
time were related to big differences in performance. In the example of
Davis, CA, the pre-1940s sections of town (intersection density 211/sq
mi) had a fatal/severe crash rate that was half the rate of the
post-1970 sections of town (intersection density 111-132/sq mi). The
walking/biking/transit mode share was 59 percent in the pre-1940
sections of town; in the post-1980 sections of town the
walking/biking/transit mode share was 14 percent.

In addition to intersection density, the researchers also
investigated street network configuration – grid patterns, cul-de-sac
patterns, and everything in between. The results were consistent across
the board, with highly connected networks of small blocks exhibiting
the best performance in all categories.

The other study
examined the effect of connectivity on fire station service area and
capital facilities planning, based on research by Matt Magnasco of the
Charlotte (N.C.) Department of Transportation.  

The key is this: The cost to operate a fire
station generally is fixed. The size of the service area and the number
of properties served per station don’t really affect operating cost.
Therefore, the bigger the service area and the more properties that can
be served, the more efficiently the fire department is using taxpayer
money. If the fire department can serve more properties with fewer
stations while meeting response time standards, it can save taxpayer
money.

The study examined eight fire stations in the Charlotte area and
found as street connectivity increased, the number of households served
by each fire station increased as well. The least-connected service
areas served 5,700 to 7,300 households; the most-connected service
areas served 20,800 to 25,900 households. That means there are dramatic
differences in the fiscal efficiency of individual fire stations. The
stations in least-connected areas cost $586 to $740 per capita
annually; the stations in most-connected areas cost $159 to $206 per
capita annually.

The study also looked at the trend of fire response times over
the past 38 years. As the Charlotte region developed with increasingly
disconnected street patterns, average fire response times increased
from 4.5 to 5.5 minutes. However, in 2001 an ordinance was passed to
require connectivity in new subdivisions. Since 2001, average response
times have dropped below the 5-minute mark. This has occurred even
though the rate of new fire station openings has remained nearly flat.

Furthermore, a study
completed by the American Society of Civil Engineers compared travel
demand in a status-quo suburban pattern to a traditional neighbourhood
pattern. The study evaluated the performance of each pattern with
respect to vehicular capacity of the street system, travel speeds, and
impacts of travel times and delays, and land required for rights of
ways.

the study found that traffic volume/capacity is reduced on arterials and

collectors by about 10% in the traditional pattern over status-quo
developments, while local street volume/capacity is nearly equal. Thus,
both patterns achieve close to the same capacity, however, where the
traditional pattern allows traffic to be dispersed among a dense
network of local streets, the status-quo

pattern relies on a sparse network of major arterials. In terms of
travel demand (measured in daily VKT), the conventional pattern
generated 75% more travel demand on arterials than the traditional
development, and up to 80% more demand on collector streets. VKT on
local streets was considerably higher in the traditional pattern
compared to the status-quo pattern, again, due to the integration of
local streets within the traditional pattern. The total VKT in the
traditional development pattern was found to be 43% lower than the
conventional development pattern.

With municipal and state budgets at the breaking point, why
aren’t CT officials looking at land use patterns and their accompanying
expenditures and begin the process of growing smarter?  I don’t know
about you, but I am willing to live without the cul-de-sac if it would
save me some tax money.

Photo: Pete Zarria via Flickr

State governments have to stop treating transportation like yet another welfare program.

Among urban and rural areas, who subsidizes whom?

It’s methodologically difficult to measure net taxation, but the studies that have been done suggest that, contrary to the belief of some, urban areas are big time net tax donors. For example, a recent Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute study found that Indiana’s urban and suburban counties generally subsidize rural ones.

Just the consolidated city-county of Indianapolis-Marion County sends $420 million more to the state annually than it receives every year. That’s equal to the entire public safety budget of the city. The rest of the metro area sends another $340 million to the state annually.

Similarly, a 2009 Georgia State University study found that the Atlanta metro area accounted for 61% of state tax collections but only but only 47% of expenditures. A 2004 University of Louisville study
found that the state’s three major urban regions — Louisville, Lexington, and Northern Kentucky (south suburban Cincinnati) — generate over half the state’s tax revenues but only receive back about one third in state expenditures, an annual net outflow of $1.4 billion per year.

The Atlanta and Indianapolis examples are particularly instructive, since both are the capital and by far the largest city of their state. They are sometimes presumed to benefit from disproportionate state spending as a result, but the reality is quite different.

That’s not to say that this is necessarily bad. The fundamental
basis of any government is a commonwealth, a body of citizens who see
themselves as fellows, who believe each other’s fates are linked. Thus,
generally spreading the burdens on some type of a progressive basis is
broadly considered equitable, and assistance to the less fortunate
constitutes a core function of government. To the extent that cities
generate the most wealth in today’s economy, and have the highest
incomes, it is no surprise they pay more in taxes. This doesn’t per se
mean there’s an anti-urban bias in policy.

Indeed, income redistribution is one of the key functions of state
government. Actual welfare and safety net programs, including things
like health care for the poor, are a major budget item in every state.
But it goes beyond that. K-12 education could be treated as a purely
local service, but every state spends large amounts on it. One could
argue this is strictly to ensure a minimum level of funding equity
between rich and poor districts. That is, it’s purely redistributive.
Indeed, states sadly spend more time fiddling with funding formulas
than in actual education reform and improvement. Even corrections
disproportionately and unfortunately affects the poor. We are, in
effect, a collection of 50 welfare states.

The fact that so many of the functions of state government have
taken on a redistributive cast also comes with downsides. Most
importantly, even functions that should have little to do with welfare
or equity have come to be seen through that lens.

Exhibit A is transportation. Two-thirds of Americans live in large metro areas, yet less than half the federal transportation stimulus funds are going to the top 100 metro areas.
Missouri is spending half its stimulus money on 89 small counties that
account for only a quarter of the state’s population. In Ohio, the
state cancelled plans to spend $100 million in stimulus funds on the
crumbling Cleveland Inner Belt bridge in order to divert them to paying
for a $150 million bypass around Nelsonville – a town of only 5,000
people. This is part of a plan to construct a four lane divided highway
into sparsely populated southeast Ohio as part of a “build it and they
will come” economic development plan. Mecklenburg County, NC, the
state’s largest and home to Charlotte, received only $7.8 million out
of the first $423 million in projects in that state. The Atlantic
Monthly described this as a contest between a “mayor’s stimulus” and a “governor’s stimulus” – and the governor won.

State after state has rural “roads to nowhere.” Without any
legitimate economic development strategy on offer for depressed rural
areas and small industrial cities, salvation is said to lie in access
to four lane highways. The logic is that until every county in America
is crisscrossed with these things, somehow residents are deprived of
their due. This plays well to rural resentment, allowing people who are
by nature proud believers in self-reliance and dismissive of welfare to
claim instead that they’ve been cheated out of their “fair share” of
transportation money. One suspects at least some deep inside understand
the fiscal reality, which accounts for the self-righteous rhetoric
designed as much perhaps to convince themselves as others.

Regardless, a lack of transportation investment is crippling our
cities, many of which have congested, crumbling roads and shaky
bridges. Earmark reform would help at the federal level. Earmarked
projects and “high priority corridors” are too often, as with
“strategic” corporate programs, projects for which no traditional
justification can be found.

But beyond this, governance reform at the state level is critical to
bring transportation funding allocations in line with real population
and economic development measures. That’s not to say that rural areas
should get no funding. There are many areas where legitimate state
funding is warranted, such as replacing substandard bridges or
correcting roads with dangerous geometry. But that doesn’t mean states
should spend huge amounts of money on large rural expansion projects of
dubious value that rob urban areas of the funds needed for projects
with genuine transportation merit and real economic development
potential.

If states won’t act to reform this, then, despite legitimate
governance concerns in our system of federalism, the federal government
may need to step in to take a more direct role in funding formulas to
ensure that a proper share of the money gets sub-allocated to metro
areas. The federal government simply can’t allow states to continue
diverting critical and limited transport money to boondoggles.

With metro areas as the economic locus of the 21st century, failing
to take action to make sure our cities get the transportation
investment they need puts both the state treasury and national economic
competitiveness at risk. Cities can only continue to play their role as
wealth generators and sources of transfer funds for their states if
they themselves are economically healthy, which requires infrastructure
investment. As the Indiana, Georgia, and Kentucky examples show, state
treasuries and rural funding are dependent on urban economic health.
You can’t redistribute money from urban to rural areas if there’s
nothing to distribute.

Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.

St. Louis County Executive Charlie "A" Dooley, August 2006. (Photo: Urban Review STL)

Tuesday April 6, 2010 voters in St. Louis County will decide the fate of Proposition A — a 1/2 cent sales tax to match the same tax previously approved by voters in the City of St. Louis.  Revenues would be used to fund existing operations and expand service of our regional public transit.

I decided to put together list of what “A” can do for the region:

1. Accelerate: strong transit will accelerate the trend toward filling in the core rather than pushing outward at the edges.  This helps ensure those folks who moved to the edge won’t be surrounded by new construction.
2. Accessible: public transit makes going from home to work accessible to many.  This applies to those of us with disabilities as well as those without access to an automobile. Getting our citizens to work, school is important for a strong region.
3. Accomplish: dedicated funding is critical to a healthy  transit transit system.  Prop. A will accomplish the goal of creating a dedicated funding source for operations.
4. Achieve: St. Louis will be closer to achieving the type of transit system a strong region needs to have to compete in the 21st century.
5. Activate: transit helps create activity.  Transit riders are often pedestrians on part of their total trip.  Their activity creates a buzz around stations & stops.  More transit and more riders that will activate our sidewalks.
6. Adjust: we will adjust our ideas about transit and what it means to the region, even if we don’t use the system ourselves (or just rarely).
7. Affirm: passage will affirm our commitment to a regional transit network.  This affirmation will send a strong message to companies and people considering the St. Louis region as a future location.
8. Affordable: as we saw when service was cut back people couldn’t get to work.  Employers need their employees at work.  Our region can’t afford to not have a functioning transit system.  We can’t afford to not pass this tax.
9. Attainable: with dedicated funding Metro can attain a decent level of service for the region through both rail & bus transit.
10. Augment: we will be able to augment the current system to better serve the core of the region, including St. Louis County.

For more information the on Proposition A see the Yes on A website at moremetrolink.com.

All around the country it’s a time of budget cuts. Some, like the New York State Legislature and Governor, are unwilling to prioritize any spending category, and cut everything across the board. Others, like the President, initiate spending caps but reallocate the spending. We need more leaders who are willing to do this.

If your personal income drops by half, do you just spend half as much at the supermarket and half as much at fancy restaurants? No, because feeding yourself is a higher priority than feeling pampered, and groceries are a more efficient way of feeding yourself. If instead you cut the grocery budget by a quarter and the restaurant budget by three-quarters, you can be just as well-nourished.

It’s the same with transit. Government funding for transit doesn’t just stimulate the economy by moving people around. It furthers social justice through access for
all. It helps make our world safer, healthier and more sustainable by getting people out of their cars. These should be the priorities of government, whether the economy is good or bad, and no matter how much the government has to spend.

But where will the money come from? Let me tell you, it really pisses me off to see people holding rallies against the transit cuts in their district, without acknowledging that the MTA simply has a lot less money to spend than they’ve had in previous years. You may say you want transit to keep running, but if you can’t find the money for it, what does that say about your priorities?

I want to make it clear that I’m
willing to sacrifice. I’m not a liberal who clamors for spending but won’t support tax increases to pay for it. Tax me! Tax my income, tax my apartment, tax me when I buy computers and fancy clothes. But don’t cut my transit service. More importantly, don’t cut the service of my neighbor, who might drive if transit is no longer convenient.

Sadly,
there’s a lot of stupid anti-tax rhetoric out there, and many
politicians have sworn not to raise taxes. Even though it might be the
best thing to do, it probably won’t happen, which leaves us with a
shrinking pot of money.

The government should spend more on
transit, but it’s not willing to raise more in taxes. The money should
come from other things, like roads. Spending priorities should reflect
overall priorities, and paying billions for free highways and bridges for cars should be a low priority.

It’s
as simple as that: free bridges for drivers=low priority. Low-cost
transit=high priority. Time to get our priorities in order.

Image above: San Francisco Central Subway Chinatown Station, from SFMTA

» Denver, Honolulu, Minneapolis, and San Francisco to see major investments in new light rail. Ten bus rapid transit lines moving forward.

In its proposed fiscal year 2011 budget released yesterday, the U.S. Department of Transportation revealed which projects it would recommend for New Starts and Small Starts capital construction grants. There are a total of $1.822 billion in grants heading to cities across the country, with huge projects in Honolulu, San Francisco, and Denver getting the biggest boost.

The Federal Transit Administration is predictable in its choices of which projects will be awarded the multi-million dollar merit-based grants, which are announced annually with the President’s proposed budget. We’ve known for several years that Minneapolis’ $1 billion light rail connection to St. Paul and San Francisco’s $1.3 billion Central Subway were likely to move forward, simply because they’ve repeatedly scored well in FTA evaluations. The same could be said for Denver’s East and Gold line rail corridors, which are backed by the huge FasTracks expansion program, and which also received good news from the federal government yesterday.

But the decision to fund a new busway connecting Hartford and New Britain in Connecticut comes as a bit of a surprise. The project has been in consideration for a decade, and it has seen both positive and negative reviews from the FTA over the years. Recent legislative actions in favor of transit projects in the state, as well as a shoring up of local funds for the project, likely pushed the U.S. government into supporting it. It will be New England’s second major busway project after Boston’s mediocre Silver Line.

The FTA’s willingness to move ahead with the $5.3 billion Honolulu rail project indicates that it is willing to buck concerns about financing stability that have been recently expressed by Hawaii’s governor. The scheme, which will begin construction later this year and which could eventually attract almost 100,000 daily riders if implemented successfully, is a major commitment: the FTA will be funding more than one billion dollars worth of the corridor’s cost, with the rest covered by local sales tax revenues.

Using the Small Starts capital grants program, the FTA also funded eight small bus rapid transit projects and one commuter rail project in the Los Angeles region. New York City’s Nostrand Avenue BRT, San Francisco’s Van Ness BRT, and the West Seattle BRT will serve very dense corridors and have received very good marks from the DOT in the past; the real question for each is whether the respective cities will be able to assemble adequate community support to begin work. The FTA’s continued funding for the East Bay BRT, which would connect Berkeley and Oakland, suggests that the agency still considers it a priority. That may be news to Bay Area politicians, who have pulled funding for the line recently in favor of the poorly considered Oakland Airport Connector, which itself is under threat by the DOT.

The other funded BRT corridors are in mostly suburban environments with center city connections.

Several projects, including Orlando’s SunRail, New York’s Access to the Region’s Core, and Houston’s North and Southeast Corridors, were approved for New Starts Funding last year. They will each move forward in the coming months.

The FTA’s evaluations of each of these projects will be released later in the spring in the annual New Starts report.

Image above: San Francisco Central Subway Chinatown Station, from SFMTA

A cyclist waits patiently for the light to change — something some drivers say they’ve never seen. (Photo: Biking in LA)

I admit it.

I spend a lot of time on here making fun of drivers.

Not all drivers, of course; after all, I’m one myself. Though these days, I find myself spending less and less time behind the wheel, and more on two wheels, two feet or even — gasp! — on a bus, which is how I made it to the last few meetings I attended at City Hall.

Not only did I survive, I actually enjoyed myself. And didn’t have to spend half an hour and the entire contents of my wallet to secure a parking space nearly as far from my destination as I was when I started out.

And not even most drivers. No, I’m talking about that relative handful of intellectual giants who’ll tell you that all cyclists run red lights, despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary at just about any signalized intersection in town.

Sure, stand there long enough, and you’ll see one or more death-defying kamikaze bike pilots blow through the light as if it, and the cars crisscrossing their path, weren’t there. But you’ll also see other riders who’ll wait patiently for the light to change.

Or the ones who complain about dangerous, unpredictable cyclists hogging the traffic lane, as they sit behind the wheel of their Hummers and Escalades applying their makeup and texting.

But they do have a point, up to a point.

I would argue there are more cyclists who safely share the road, observing traffic signals and right-of-way rules, than there are those who don’t. But you don’t have to spend a lot of time on the road to spot a few who seem to push the limits of safety and sanity.

Take the rider I saw this afternoon. Please.

There he was, blithely cruising through heavy traffic on a busy L.A. boulevard, headphones on and riding in the lane with no hands, a shopping bag dangling from one hand. Fortunately, most drivers were going out of their way to give him a wide berth.

Then again, most Angelenos try to avoid crazy people in the street.

Then there was the guy on the mountain bike who was making his way on the wrong side of the same street, like a salmon going upstream to spawn. And just as a salmon dies after spawning, I wouldn’t have wanted to lay odds on his chances of survival.

It’s one thing to take the lane. But seriously, you’re far better off going with the flow of traffic, instead of wondering why all those people are honking and swearing as they swerve around you.

Of course, I’ve seen worse.

Like the guy who took the lane on Santa Monica Boulevard as he rode through Century City awhile back, despite the presence of one of the city’s better bike lanes sitting clear and unobstructed just a few feet to his right — and a long line of unexpectedly patient drivers following behind. That is, until a cab driver tried to slide by him to get to the right turn lane, and had to endure a violent tirade from the rider for trying to pass him in the bike lane. And yes, that’s the same bike lane he had no interest in using himself.

Or there were the two guys I saw blow through a red light last summer, even though that meant worming their way through a crowded crosswalk, as people struggled to jump out of their path.

For anyone out there who may not be clear on the subject, pedestrians in the crosswalk have the right-of-way. Always.

Period.

I somehow managed to resist the temptation to chase them down and shove their bikes into the same orifice their heads seemed to occupy.

Yet, if you listen to the comments these drivers make, that’s exactly what we’re supposed to do. They expect us to assume responsibility for every law-breaking jerk on two-wheels.

We’re told that it’s up the bicycling community to make the outlaw cyclists straighten up and ride right. And that’s the only way we’ll earn the respect of drivers, and earn our place on the streets.

Which is absurd, of course.

While I would hope that everyone would learn to ride safely, our right to the road is already guaranteed by law. It’s not something that has to be earned, or a consideration given by those who share the road with us.

They’re obligated to share the road, safely, regardless of whether they think it’s safe, or smart. And whether they like it or not.

How someone else rides is no more your responsibility than those who speed, fail to signal or make illegal U-Turns are my responsibility when I’m behind the wheel, or that of any other driver on the road.

And until they get that, I don’t expect their respect.

And people like that shouldn’t expect ours.

………

One of the few things I’ve never experienced on a bike — two flats at the same time, from the same pothole. Creek Freak notes improvements to the Elysian Valley Bike Path. The issue isn’t why more men support vehicular cycling, but why so few women ride. Riding Miami’s life-risking Rickenbaker Causeway, two weeks after another rider is killed; and who is to blame. Are bikes expensive toys or serious transportation? A Kiwi Olympian is injured in crossing collision in bike-unfriendly Christchurch. In Copenhagen, even manhole covers are bike friendly. Finally, a reminder that people can’t be put back together after an accident.

Riding a bicycle doesn’t mean freedom to everybody. (Photo: Steffe via Flickr)

I made contact this week with a fellow bike commuter I’ve seen nearly every day since last summer. His is a rare sight on a bicycle on the rural roads outside of Chapel Hill and Carrboro — an older Latino man that we dubbed Cristobal so that we could talk about him between us. When the temperature and day light permitted the 20-mile ride to town, we’d cross paths with this man going the opposite direction. My partner and I would both wave from our tandem across the busy road, and eventually he started waving back.

As a sort of complement to this story, a new report called “Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report” was released today by the Alliance for Biking & Walking, which uses what (limited) available data there is to look at how many people are biking and walking in the U.S., and who they are. Well, there’s us. And there’s Cristobal.

Before we met Cristobal, we speculated that he was Mexican, probably from a certain state where most of the Latinos in this part of North Carolina come from. (It helps that my partner works with migrant populations in this area of Mexico). We also figured that he was commuting by bicycle to work at a farm or quarry 12-15 miles out into the countryside because he didn’t have a car. In my head, I was happy for Cristobal, and hoped that he enjoyed the choice of bicycling as much as I do. I thought, he must be one of the most fit guys in his neighborhood.

He rides an older, beat-up blue bike with cruiser handlebars and baskets on his rear rack. Until recently he wore a cap rather than helmet, and still he wears a helmet only occasionally. When we would pass by on our tandem in warmer months, he seemed comfortable on the bike, even a bit amused. We stopped riding for the winter, but we see him every day on our drive. The morning temperatures are in the 20s and 30s. He has a thick coat, mittens, and a helmet sits atop a knit cap. He looks miserable.

As we were traveling home in the early winter dark, we didn’t see him. Not because he wasn’t there, but because he had no lights or reflectors. I decided to buy him a set of front and rear lights. I was worried for his safety, but I also took this as my opportunity to meet him. There’s a gas station where we often see his bike where he probably stops for a snack on the way to and from work. After weeks of driving by, we finally passed the store while he was there. We stopped and met Cristobal.

First off, his name’s not Cristobal, but it’ll do for this blog. We approached with big awkward grins and the set of lights. Luckily my partner is also fluent in Spanish. While I set to installing the lights on his bike, she was able to get Cristobal’s story. As she guessed, Cristobal is from Guanajuato. He’s a bit older than the typical recent Mexican immigrant, though he’s probably younger than he looks. He moved here two years ago and lives with his son who’s in his 20s. I shook Cristobal’s hand, and it was rough and chalky.

We introduced ourselves as the tandem couple that waved to him when we passed him back in the warmer months – he seemed to remember us. We told him that we were impressed he biked so far out everyday, that he must be strong, and that he’s a better person than us for dealing with the winter. The private bicycle cheerleader in my head was shouting RAH-RAH, but Cristobal’s take on it was different. He said he hates biking. That he only does it because he needs the job, the job is far from town, and he has no car. But he said he was grateful for the lights, shook our hands with genuine warmth, and mounted his bike to ride back home in the dark.

We passed him on our way home today and were glad to see his new lights flashing from the side of the road. It was a warmer afternoon, in the 50s, but tomorrow they are predicting snow, which at least means cold and precipitation. Trucks were spraying “brine” along the road.

Without speculating about Cristobal’s personal circumstances, we know that North Carolina makes it difficult for immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses now – a reckless conflation of poor immigration policy with public safety, which is what the license process should really be about – but that’s a problematic topic for another post. According to what I can gather from this new “Benchmarks” report from the Alliance for Biking & Walking (ABW), Cristobal’s reasons for bike commuting are at least as common as all of us folks now blogging about our conscious decisions to commute by bike. Mine is a choice, his is not.

As I said at the beginning, Cristobal, the Latino immigrant bike commuting out of necessity, is a rare sight out on the country roads. But it’s not so rare in cities and towns across this country. According to the ABW report, while Hispanics now make up 15% of the U.S. population, they account for 22% of total bike trips. If this data is accurate, then that population is overrepresented among bicyclists, while perhaps underrepresented in the popular media image of who bicyclists are.

The ABW report also attempts to break down bike trips by socioeconomic brackets, but that data seems to come from 2001 numbers, which may or may not be relevant anymore. For what they’re worth, those old numbers indicate that across income levels, the share of bike trips is basically the same. What is even harder to capture is the reason (utility or recreation or some combination of those) for the bike trip. ABW speculates that the lower-income share of bike trips may be more for utility, while higher income classes may bike more for recreation. Given that Hispanics have a very high poverty rate in North Carolina and the rest of the U.S., it’s probably not a wildly irresponsible assumption that among Hispanic bikers, utility trips out of necessity make up a large proportion of their total trips by bike, like Cristobal.

There’s another image of the bicyclist that I don’t see represented in the media and bike blog community that much, but was probably the most prevalent when I was a kid growing up in rural Maine, and may still be the popular image of bicyclists among certain communities, such as low-income communities and rural areas. My childhood mind remembers basically three types of bicyclists: kids like me on their bmx’s; the occasional odd-ball adult in neon lycra; and, more commonly, the slovenly-looking fellow biking against traffic. Bikes in this last category were known as DUI-machines, and I bet their popularity has not waxed or waned one way or the other.

I’m happy, and exceedingly lucky, to have the choice to ride my bike (er… choice of one of many bikes) for utility or for fun. (I’m even luckier to have a partner to ride a tandem with, who has by and large the same motivation as me, plus can speak Spanish…). There’s probably at least as many bicyclists who ride out of necessity, as out of choice. As our society looks at products to market, services and education to offer, and new transportation plans and policies, I hope that a major demographic of the bicyclist population doesn’t get lost on the side streets.

A perfect storm of pedestrian fatalities in Toronto. (Photo: Kevin Steele)

Last week, as pedestrian deaths in the GTA mounted, several media outlets asked me how I felt about this seeming epidemic. I generally replied that I was horrified.

I also tried to look for an explanation. After the tenth death in just over a week, I wrote a post last week wondering if perhaps a week of poor visibility was a factor. I hoped that a change in the weather would bring an end to these fatal accidents. I also wrote an op-ed in the Star pointing out that most of these collisions took place in the suburbs, where the infrastructure is often dangerous for pedestrians.

In the following 5 days, 3 more pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles, all within the boundaries of the old City of Toronto. It’s obviously more than just overcast weather and suburban infrastructure, hazardous as they are. There have now been 7 pedestrians killed in one month in Toronto, possibly the most ever in a single month since amalgamation. Another 7 have been killed in the GTA.

By this point, my feeling is shell-shock. I have no idea how to explain what is happening. It’s as if all possible causes of pedestrian deaths have come together at the same time: bad visibility; inattentive and aggressive drivers; heavy vehicles (5 or more of the 14 deaths); distracted pedestrians (for goodness’  sake, do not cross the street while talking on a cellphone); terrible infrastructure (the intersection of Danforth and Broadview, where a man was killed on Friday, is particularly bad for pedestrians — sweeping corners that allow vehicles to turn at speed).

There was no official response from the city to this tide of death until yesterday, when the Mayor answered questions about the deaths in a media scrum. The tragedy is that the City could have been putting pedestrian safety programs in place for several months now, and could have had the resources to respond immediately to the rising tide of tragedies.

Last May, the City approved a thoughtful new Toronto Walking Strategy, which included many initiatives aimed at making walking safer (such as leading pedestrian intervals for traffic lights, no right turns on red at dangerous intersections,  improving intersections, and safety campaigns). It is to be implemented by a new Pedestrian Projects section of the new Public Realm office.

The new pedestrian group is funded by a modest fund (a few million dollars) put in reserve from the advertising revenue of the new Street Furniture Program. That money can’t be used elsewhere, so it is entirely separate from the City’s budget. The idea is that money earned by advertising in the pedestrian realm gets spent on the pedestrian realm.

But the Pedestrian Projects group has been paralyzed because hasn’t been able to use the money to bring on the staff needed to actually implement the Walking Strategy. Although its budget is completely independent and has no effect on the City’s operations budget, the hiring freeze imposed on hiring new staff under the City’s budget has been applied to the Pedestrian Projects office as well. As a result, the Strategy has not yet got off the ground, and the City was unable to respond quickly as pedestrian deaths mounted.

The Toronto Pedestrian Committee (of which I am co-chair) is pushing the City to allow the Pedestrian Projects office to use the funds it already has to hire staff so that it can start implementing programs that make the streets safer for pedestrians. Last night, CBC local TV news at 6:00 led with this issue and showed Mayor David Miller saying they would look for ways to hire the needed staff. Today, city council is supposed to take time to talk about this epidemic of pedestrians killed by vehicles on Toronto’s streets.

We’ll see what happens.

Photo by Kevin Steele

The Blue Line in Los Angeles. (Photo: Travelin’ Local)

It’s no mystery that Los Angeles has some of the worst air quality in the nation. Doubly worse is the heavy traffic that clogs up the freeways on a daily basis. And if you decide to go anywhere, well good luck finding or paying for parking.

Like many people living in highly congested cities, I’ve become so fed up with traffic, that I decided to set out on a one day mission to see what public transportation is really like. What better way to do my part in creating a cleaner environment than to travel by bus and train, thereby cutting down on the air pollution and Green House Gas emissions that my car produces.

Mass transit ridership seems to be inching up, ever so slightly, with more and more people looking for eco-friendlier solutions for transportation, while still staying economical at the same time.

During the entirety of my trip, I spent only $3.25 to travel 11 miles to Downtown Los Angeles, and then back to my house in Long Beach, taking the bus and the Blue Line rail system.

My goal, however, was not to view the snowy mountaintops and vast landscape–which was an added bonus–but to discover the green advantages to riding on the LA Metro bus and rail systems.

And I have to say, it sure beats carpooling, especially when you’re riding along with dozens of other people, as opposed to just a couple friends. That means hundreds of gas-guzzling cars were off the roads that day, including mine.

My first question was just how “Green” is the local Mass Transit System?

In general, riding the Metro rail and Metrolink systems greatly reduces Green House Gas emissions and air pollution, in addition to cutting down the amount of cars on the road. But thorny problems still remain to be solved, because powering light rails and railroads requires high voltages of energy, from either fully electric systems or diesel locomotives. Under both scenarios, we still end up burning large amounts of fossil fuels, depending on the weight and type of rail system used.

LA Metro Rail

Light Rail Transit trains are currently used for the Blue, Green, and Gold Lines. They all are fuel powered, via electrically wired system overheads, much like the Pacific Electric Red Car system that ended in 1961.

Heavy rail electrically-powered trains are currently used on the LA Metro Red and Purple Line underground subway system.

Self-Propelled Railcars are similar to Light Rail Transit, but are powered by on-board, clean-burning engines instead of overhead electrical wires. Fuel sources often include clean diesel, natural gas, hybrid technology, or other non-electric sources.

Metrolink

Commuter Rail is part of the service currently provided by Metrolink in Southern California, with locomotives pulling passenger rail coaches on longer-distance routes. The heavy trains that run through Antelope Valley, Riverside, Orange County, San Bernardino, and Ventura are fueled by low sulfur diesel engines.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Buses

Los Angeles County currently has one of the largest fleet of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)-powered buses in the nation, with a total of 2,506 busses according to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Also, the agency just recently secured another order of 41 new CNG buses in 2009; and they are expected to be up and running by the end of this year.

“Buses fueled by CNG are up to 97 percent cleaner than diesel buses, because they emit little cancer-causing particulate matter.” With their most recent plans, the agency hopes to reduce annual air pollution by an estimated 14 tons by 2030.

More Green aspects of Mass Transit

Our mass transit system has definitely come a long way in improving the energy efficiency of its bus and rail units. As well, the stations and bus stops that blanket the county have dramatically improved their energy efficiency also. For instance, by installing solar panels on connecting facilities, the system here has "the most solar power generated facilities for mass transit. Solar energy produced 850 kilowatts in 2007 and an additional 1,000 kilowatts in 2008, increasing to 32,000 kilowatts of capacity currently,” according to the MTA . Solar panels on rail stations are expected by 2011.

The stations are also becoming LEED Certified (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) using a green building standards rating system (certified silver, gold and platinum) developed by the US Green Building Council. The MTA has also implemented the use of recycled materials and low Green House Gas components in the construction of new projects.

The future for Mass Transit Rail Transportation

Although it isn’t mainstream yet, the future of railway is a hybrid model that would lessen energy consumption across the board. For instance, Hitachi has developed a hybrid propulsion rail system, that combines engine, generator, traction, motors and storage battery usages that save both energy and emissions, according to the California Rail News. And last year, a new hydrogen fuel cell railway system was unveiled in Topeka, Kansas.

Funding to expand Rail Systems

For being one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the nation, public transportation in Los Angeles, isn’t even on the radar when compared to New York or San Francisco, where there really is no reason to own a car. This begs the question, why aren’t more Southern Californians taking advantage of mass transit?

From my experience described in this article, I’m deducing that one of the main reasons why people here shy from riding the bus or train in general, is the extra time factor involved, and the need to schedule your trip in advance.

There are so many connections and times to adhere to, it can get a little confusing. Also with the Metro information being at times overwhelming and obtuse, people can easily become confused about how to properly travel on the Metro. And with so many stops along the way, if you miss your ride, well, that could mean an extra hour of waiting time, and an additional cost–both in money and productivity. With the rush of today’s fast paced society, most people aren’t willing to wait around.

That’s probably why the MTA works every year to expand the rail systems to include more destinations. According to their 2008 draft plan, the agency is slated to spend $152 billion over the next two decades toward upgrading our mass transit system from state and federal government funding. 

My suggestion would be to make mass transit more practical for the everyday passenger, instead of gearing the system toward tourists and lessen quick straight rides in favor of more stops and destinations.

Well, one step at a time.

Interesting facts about LA Metro mass transit

The single most effective action a household can take to reduce their carbon emissions footprint (up to 30 percent) is replacing one car in a two-car family with transit and bicycling.  The 73-mile Metro Rail system moves nearly 260,000 passengers each weekday.   The Metro Rapid program has expanded to operate along 20 corridors and carry 185,000 passengers daily.  Metrolink has expanded its service to six counties and 512 route miles, and carries an average of 43,500 passenger trips daily.   Source: MTA

Sean Belk maintains his own news blog “Eye On Ecology” at www.eyeonecology.net.

Perhaps not. Here’s one fact that hasn’t truly sunk in for most: Judge Millington revoked Thompson’s driver’s license for life.

Now all he needs to do is invent the bicycle. ("Planet of the Apes" still via Westside Bikeside)

What does that mean? It means that, in two to five years when Thompson gets out, he’s one of us.  If he doesn’t want to ride the bus, if he doesn’t want to walk long distances, and if he loses his shirt in the civil trial, Thompson will be biking. He’s lucky for that too, and I’ll tell you why.

Things move fast for cycling.  We feel like we don’t get a lot of respect, that’s probably the only thing cyclists can all agree on.  The reality is, compared to other movements, our progress is rapid; the LA cycling movement has gone from one that could barely get an agenda item at council, to one which the new Chief of Police actively engages us (or, seeks to mitigate), in an insanely short period.  If Thompson’s temper doesn’t fare well in California prison, and he gets out in five years, instead of the predicted two, he could be returning to an unrecognizable city.

He could be returning to a city without Michelle Mowery.  A city with a new city council and a new mayor.  A city that has passed through ruin and emerged leaner and meaner.  Maybe a city that, in hard economic times (I promise, they’re not over), leaned on the bicycle as an affordable and humanizing form of transportation.

In the last 5 years Los Angeles has gone from having one small bike co-op, in a fresh storefront, to four bike co-ops, three with storefronts.  Absurdly projecting, Thompson could be returning to a city with sixteen bike co-ops, nine in storefronts!  There might be two cyclists on every neighborhood council!

It could be an amazing place to ride.  Not because of infrastructure – pavement is pavement – but because if you hopped on a major boulevard, you could always find the riding company of several riders.  Little spontaneous herds of riders heading each direction.  Implausible?  Max Lucas remarked that five years ago he rarely came across riders in the bike lanes on Venice.  Now, in counts on summer afternoons, Venice Blvd consistently averages out 1 BPM (biker per minute) in each direction (as counted by Bikerowave Cooperative Inc!)  Perhaps in five years, it will have five cyclists per minute each way.  And with the constant lobbying of an active cycling community, there might be a supportive police force out there, steadily curtailing dangerous motorist behavior.

When Thompson gets out, LA could be a tremendous place to ride.

That’s why when I heard the verdict, I tweeted this:

Westsidazz: Dr. Thompson is going away for 5 years. While he’s gone lets work real hard and get everyone on bikes, k? 1:16 PM Jan 8th from web

I’m 29 years old, for a few more weeks, and 5 years still feels like a long time to me.  Particularly when the shifts we need to make aren’t so much physical (bike lanes etc) but mental (culture of respect!)  I figure with some damnably hard work, and a never say die attitude, we can transform this town in 5 years.  If we did?  Joe Anthony did the math for Thompson:

Ohaijoe: It’ll be like Planet of the Apes RT @westsidazz Dr. T is going away for 5 years. While he’s gone lets work real hard & get everyone on bikes 1:18 PM Jan 8th from Power Twitter

“Oh my god” I thought,  “Joe’s more right than he might have realized.”  To Thompson it really would look like the Planet of the Apes.  He would have left a city where the car is king and it’s necessity is unquestioned by most.  A city in which many people who decried his violence qualified “those cyclists can be real jerks and besides, they were riding TWO ABREAST!”

He might return to a city which put cyclists and pedestrians, as vulnerable road users, first.  He might return to a city where cycling is fashionable, and cyclist intimidation, in any form, is unfashionable.  He might return to a city where all his dating prospects are hoping he will take them for a ride at sunset on a tandem bicycle.  LA might share the cover of Time, along with President Roboma and Vice President Enci Box, as the most changed city of the decade.

And, he might really lose it:

(Planet of the Apes finale on YouTube)

He might walk out of prison, fall down on the sand, pound it with his angry fists, yelling “you maniacs!  You blew it up!  Goddamn you!  Goddamn you all to hell!”

Just the thought of that is inspiring.  I like the idea of flipping Thompson’s world inside out one more time, and landing him in bike paradise.  So, I’d like to announce Bikeside’s Planet of the Apes meta-project. It’s not really a project – what the hell would a Planet of the Apes project grant application look like?  It’s more of a goal: total, unfathomable, transformation.  Total transformation of LA’s streets; unfathomable transformation of LA’s minds.  Mitigation & incremental improvement – these are criteria by which ball bearing engineers measure improvement.  We the bikers – we should set bold goals.  We should begin our journey not entirely certain of our destination, just intention and resolve to work like hell to get it done.  I say we point to the mountain in the distance and say “that’s where we’re going, screw the map.”  That’s the Planet of the Apes meta-project – a commitment to all out transformation of LA to a lush, livable, fun-able, paradise.

If we do it right, Thompson really will be floored.  Maybe we should meet him at his release with a milkshake, a pink tasseled beach cruiser, and a contract to work at the County Hospital and donate his wages to Bikeside, 501c4.

Westsidazz: Thompson is going away for 5 years. While he’s gone lets work real hard and get everyone on bikes, k? 1:16 PM Jan 8th from web

Ohaijoe: It’ll be like Planet of the Apes RT @westsidazz Dr. T is going away for 5 years. While he’s gone lets work real hard & get everyone on bikes 1:18 PM Jan 8th from Power Twitter

Westsidazz: @ohaijoe Ha ha ha – the Planet of the Apes project. 1:23 PM Jan 8th from web in reply to ohaijoe

Ohaijoe: @westsidazz It could happen! Look at the changes over the past 5 years, amazed at all the bikes on the streets now. 1:25 PM Jan 8th from Power Twitter in reply to westsidazz

Westsidazz: @ohaijoe It WILL happen. 2:09 PM Jan 8th from web in reply to ohaijoe

Ohaijoe: @westsidazz I find that each of us planting a few seeds here and there is all it takes to make a big change. 2:11 PM Jan 8th from Power Twitter in reply to westsidazz

Westsidazz: @ohaijoe OR, alternatively, we could engineer a super intelligent race of biking apes who take over the world . . . 2:19 PM Jan 8th from web in reply to ohaijoe

Ohaijoe: @westsidazz This idea has legs. 2:22 PM Jan 8th from Power Twitter in reply to westsidazz