Awareness Test
Take this awareness test. It's good. It's short. It's better with sound - there's voice narration, but it's not loud or crazy or anything.
Take this awareness test. It's good. It's short. It's better with sound - there's voice narration, but it's not loud or crazy or anything.
The TSTC blog noted from an article in the Wall Street Journal that it looks like there is finally evidence that Americans are responding to the high price of gas by driving less. This graph from the Federal Highway Administration is pretty interesting – constant increase for two decades except for the last year. You can see a couple inflections along the graph where there were recessions in 1991 and 2002, but this time it is far more serious a dip in the graph. As the price of gas has risen, lots of people have wondered at what point it would start to affect the driving habits of this mobile country – well, it looks like we’ve hit that point.
Who said they had to be driving directions (check step 23)?
You may otherwise want to look into that submersible car, 007-style.
invisible5.org is an interesting sounding (I haven't done it, but would definitely if I do the SF-LA stretch again) audio tour - like a narrated museum tour, except this is outside, made to be listened to in your car. It highlights the environmental problems of the I-5 corridor. The website is interesting with some good pictures.
The New York City Police Department really does not seem to like bicyclists. The monthly Critical Mass rides annoy them to no end, and they were not very nice to bicyclists during the 2004 Republican National Convention protests by either.
Now they have decided that the best way to get back at the bicycle community is by changing the parade permit rules and regulations to be so restrictive that pretty much anyone but a single person on a bicycle riding down the street could be in violation of the parade rules (that is not an exaggeration, 2 or more people on bicycles could be considered a parade or gathering that needs a permit).
The police department has lost all its recent court cases against bicyclists who have been arrested, and the judges in the cases have been quite harsh with the conduct of the Police. So the police have decided to change the rules heavily in their favor.
The police department has come up with an overkill and heavy-handed solution for a problem that almost does not even exist. As one New York Times columnist said, "What happened here is that a molehill became a mountain."
I urge every one to get in contact with their city council member and the mayor to voice their concern and displeasure with this ridiculous proposal by the police department.
NY Times 19 July 2006: "The Police Department wants to require parade permits for bicyclists traveling in groups of 20 or more, and any bicyclists or walkers who take to the streets in groups of two or more and disobey traffic laws for things like parades, races or protests, according to a public notice filed with the city...."
Part of the mission of the NYC DOT is to "enhance mobility," but does it always have to be via the motor vehicle? 8 million people in New York City, a constrained amount of land, and the densest built environment in the country -- and still a transit and pedestrian focus seems alien to the DOT.
Seems a few people have been noticing lately. The New York City Streets Renaissance group is trying to push a pretty good agenda. Gotham Gazette ran a good article by a former professor of mine at Hunter College on Livable Streets. The Tristate Transportation Campaign has been following the controversy over the new Yankee Stadium planning proposal and the extra parking that the city cannot prove that it needs. Recent patently false or completely misguided statements by officials at the DOT make one wonder what hidden agenda they are following or what drug is in the drinking water at the agency.
New York City Councilwoman Gale Brewer has introduced a bill to have the DOT's performance measured against real-world performance goals:
the bill would supplement these statistics with a set of measures whose aim will be to assess and reduce “the amount of traffic citywide and within each borough.” Specific aims of the new data would be to “reduce commute time citywide,” reduce household exposure to street emissions and reduce driving’s share of travel to central business districts while increasing those of mass transit, cycling and walking.
Sounds like a good piece of legislation, however unfortunate since the agency can't seem to get itself going and actually helping out all the people of the city.
Maisonneuve has a great article on why you should jaywalk (pdf). It's not rocket science really, cities with lots of pedestrian traffic have more pedestrians friendly environments, and drivers are more aware of pedestrians - so they can and should jaywalk to continuously promote the "pedestrian environment."
Here in New York City, my own particular "promotion" happens on Canal Street, where I purposely walk on the street and get in the way of traffic (not that I am the only person in the street, if you have ever been on Canal Street, you know that the sidewalks are ridiculously crowded and people are always walking in the curb lane). The New York City DOT and NYMTC have been studying the Canal Street corridor for a while, but the big problem with their studies is that they assume foremost that it should move lots of traffic through a crowded downtown city environment - Chinatown of all places especially. So, whenever I am down there I do my best to get in the way of automobile traffic. Maybe someday the powers that the will understand that New York is truly a walking city.
The New York City Police Department is definitely going overboard In in their crackdown on the Critical Mass rides, I wonder if more news coverage like this New York Times article will get them to back off, or if it will take legal action - more than just losing their case to stop the rides.
The New York Times had an article about the quite late New York City Department of Transportation truck study, which says without giving many details how out screwed up the freight delivery situation in this region is. Sure, things get to where they need to go, but transport costs are very high, pollution is a big problem, and in many places the system is set up so that trucks have an incentive to drive on local streets instead of major thoroughfares or expressways. One particularly good quote from the article:
The police are not known to be tough on truck drivers. Inspector McCarthy testified yesterday that the police issued more than 13,000 summonses for truck infractions last year. By comparison, officers issued more than 40,000 citations to bicyclists, according to Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group for pedestrians and cyclists.
I thought I had seen all the good parking signs in New York City. I guess not. I saw this one on 1st Avenue near 40th Street last week. I guess if you go over the top, people just won't take you seriously.
With the current Republican Congress and President, it seems like it has been too difficult to raise the CAFE standards and get more fuel efficient cars manufactured that way. So the EPA is (voluntarily? being forced?) finally reforming the way it figures out the fuel efficiency numbers for production vehicles:
EPA has long been criticized for using outdated standards for evaluating fuel economy that consumer groups, auto industry officials and car buyers say severely overstate mileage by failing to reflect contemporary "real world" driving conditions.
If many cars have lower miles-per-gallon ratings, car manufacturers will need to manufacture smaller, more fuel efficient cars to entice buyers and meet their fuel efficiency quotas:
The potential for dramatically lower fuel mileage estimates also may mean limits on what you may find on showroom floors in years to come. "Companies will be forced to build smaller cars and move away from larger ones," said Jack Nerad, a Kelley Blue Book analyst. "Over the course of time, car companies have essentially subsidized their economy vehicles to make sure that their fleets" meet what are known as CAFE standards, or, Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards for their entire lineup, Nerad said. "They kind of artificially lowered the prices of high fuel economy cars."
I don't really believe the automakers when they complain, I think they can produce more efficient vehicles without too many problems and people will be quite happy buying them. If all their vehicles have to be more fuel efficient, they can use some of that research they put into more horsepower in smaller engines into getting better efficiency at the same horsepower.
The New York City Federal Reserve Bank has produced a good analysis of the changes in commuting patterns in the metropolitan area based on some recently released census data, drawing some reasonable conclusions as to why the various trends exist.
This was something that I looked at also, although not nearly as in-depth as the report. My analysis was mainly to observe the amount of long distance (or "extreme") commuting going on in the New York - New Jersey - Connecticut - Pennsylvania commuting areas. Here is the PowerPoint presentation I put together, including the GIS maps that were the main point of the project:
Over the summer I wrote a paper for school that took a high-level look at how investment in a transportation facility would affect the economic development outcomes of an area, with specific reference to the Interstate 86 corridor of the Southern tier counties of New York State. In the interest of open scholarship, I figured I would make the paper available online:
NY1 reports that the first hybrid cabs are out on the streets of New York City. Let's hope that we see a lot more of them - and that they prove themselves as worthy for the job.
![]()
Four good groups getting together to try and promote some good ideas through their charter.
A post over at The Third Rail wondered what it would take to get people out of their cars (specifically, into transit). On a mostly parallel idea, I found a paper (long) that talks about land use changes in some Austin neighborhoods that might or might not get people to walk more.
First, certain urban form characteristics which planners can encourage through land use policies and design guidelines make walking and shopping locally more attractive choices. The most important policy is to encourage commercial activity within walking distance of residential areas - a necessary but not sufficient condition for walking. ... These policies will not mean a significant reduction in automobile travel, but they will mean that the choice to walk or shop locally becomes more competitive with driving to more distant locations.
Second, most of what influences residents' choices about walking and local shopping is not anything that planners can do anything about. The fact that residents have so many choices -- not just the local supermarket but also the next one down the road or the health food store across town -- means that few of them will always choose the closest option, instead sometimes or always traveling farther to find the store that better meets their needs. ...Many of the characteristics that produce a comfortable and interesting walking environment depend not on neighborhood design but on how residents adapt and adapt to the neighborhood... The connection residents feel to their local businesses depends on the efforts those businesses make to foster those connections.
So can land use policies be an effective strategy for reducing automobile dependence? Yes and no. Land use policies are clearly important in determining whether residents have the choice to do something other than drive. In that sense they help to reduce the need to drive. But simply having an alternative to driving doesn't mean that residents will take advantage of it. This study shows that some people are more disposed to walk than others and that those who are more disposed to walk are more disposed to chose a neighborhood where walking is an option. ... Planners should focus on land use policies that will help to provide alternatives to driving, but they shouldn't expect such policies alone to control growing levels of travel.
I have been reading about the peak oil situation - that this is the year of maximum oil production, it's all downhill from here. Certainly seems to makes sense these days with fuel prices so high and no sign of them coming down (not owning a car, this particular problem does not bother me too much). Since transportation uses so much of the oil that we have/import, this article about what vehicles or services might be first on the list in an oil shortage compared to the current #1 user, the single occupancy vehicle:
If we had to rank essential uses for oil, transporting a single person to work would have to fall somewhere near the bottom. At the top would be fueling the tractors that plant and harvest our food. Food transport trucks, and a long list of other kinds of trucks and buses, would be listed before we get to the family car. (Courtesy of Peak Oil News)
New Jersey Transit is trying to make it even harder to take pictures of their trains. Apparently you already have to get a permit to take pictures of the trains, but now they want to institute a 24 hour call ahead rule even after you get a permit. What's next - a note from your mother? Didn't anyone tell them that the MTA gave up on this idea?
I understand the increased need for security these days, but these ridiculous no photograph rules are quite unnecessary restrictions. Anyone that really wanting the photographs for an illegal purpose is probably not going to register or obey any restrictions anyway, so all they end up doing is penalizing lawful citizens. One more baby step towards a police state.
Mayor Bloomberg comments on the future plans for the streets, walkways, and bikeways of New York City in the Queens Express. It is some what unfortunate that even though the accomplishments highlighted talk largely about the reduced number of deaths - still too many - the first thing talked about for improvements is congestion relief and not safety.
By the numbers: airline industry wide statistics (and here with charts) for late arrivals, late departures, cancellations, etc. Looks like the industry average is about 20% late arrivals per year over the past decade. Unfortunately this table does not give times, like average time delay.
More: some airline consumer protection reports that have a wealth of information: Flight Delays, Mishandled Baggage, Oversales, Consumer Complaints, Customer Service Reports to the Dept. of Homeland Security, Airline Animal Incident Reports - Broken down by airline (the flight delays are even broken down by airport, flight route) over the past several years.
Maybe you have heard of pollution credit trading, where power plant companies that pollute buy credits on a market so they don't have to physically upgrade their plants. Now there is a company that will sell credits to automobile owners to "cancel" the pollution from their cars. Of course, all the environmental types with relatively non polluting cars have been the only buyers so far.
The Surface Transportation Policy Project released a report, Driven to Spend, which compares costs in 25 metropolitan areas for household transportation. One unsurprising finding is that in metropolitan areas with good public/regional transit networks, households spend a smaller percentage of their income on transportation. These metropolitan areas are also less exposed to fluctuations in gas prices through the transportation spending habits of their residents.
"If Baltimore households spent the national average on transportation, (19.1% instead of 14%), they would have spent an extra $2 billion in 2003 on transportation, and if Houston households would have spent the national average on transportation (19.1% instead of 20.9%), they would have saved $1.2 billion on transportation."
Oil and gasoline are going to be with us a little bit longer, so here is a bit of visual data on why this country, and the world really, needs more fuel efficient vehicles.
Transportation - mainly cars and trucks - make up the largest part, and growing, of our use of oil.
We are registering more vehicles and using more fuel (the proportion of fuel-to-vehicle is fortunately getting slightly smaller as one person can only drive one vehicle at a time)
We are driving more and more in our vehicles.
After a brief to jump in fuel efficiency and amount driven per car after the last energy crisis, both have stayed constant. It is really quite a shame that and advanced country like ours can not - or shall I say does not - produce more fuel efficient cars then we do. The other average has stayed the same because, see above, we have more cars to drive.
The president mentioned conservation a couple weeks ago as the first point in a strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Given the above data, it is obvious where that conservation should start.
The MTA subway map is distorted and not to scale so it is easier to read the stations and routes. This geographically correct subway map lets you know where you are really going.
I have not heard much about it, so it seems that the MTA did not ban photography in the subways - at least the rules say it is still okay. Which is good, because it lets this guy take beautiful photographs on his way to work.
Friend to bicyclists and pedestrians of New York City and beyond (and good guy), Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives was seriously hurt in a bicycling accident (reportedly hit by a hit-and-run truck) the other day. Transportation Alternatives is holding a rally this Monday in his honor.
Transportation Alternatives has a new resource called CrashStat, which gives maps of accidents causing injuries or fatalities to pedestrians in all of New York City. It usefully lists the top ten worst intersections in each borough and the 50 worst intersections citywide.
Crain's New York Business has an article about how expensive it is to keep a car in New York City - not just Manhattan, but anywhere near the core (parking is probably a bit easier on the fringes but what do I know...). What is needed along with this is a concurrent and coherent strategy to push transit out into the further metropolitan region so that when city people stop driving they are not just replaced with people in cars from the outer counties of the region. Then you will have better air quality, reduced congestion and a more livable region because people are not so concerned about being killed by automobiles every time they leave their house.
Most people in New York City know that we need some expansion of the subway system. The federal government now seems to really understand - and be willing to help pay for - that expansion. Hopefully the State of New York can find some spare change somewhere and pitch in a bit more for the 2nd Avenue and East Side Access projects, to make sure that the feds keep up their end of the deal.
The Federal Highway Administration has teamed up with the Project For Public Spaces and brought out a Context Sensitive Solutions site/resource. It is good to see the lumbering giant that is FHWA the being so visible in its support of contextually planned transportation infrastructure.
In the magazine of the San Francisco AIA, two transportation consultants deconstruct the top ten myths about parking. Worth reading, but here are the top ten myths:
Myth 1: Successful cities have abundant parking.
Myth 2: Its difficult to find parking in the neighborhood. We need to build more.
Myth 3: Free parking--the 28th Amendment.
Myth 4: All motorists are created equal.
Myth 5: Even in the Bay Area, people dont like to walk. Parking needs to be right outside the front door.
Myth 6: Having fewer parking spaces means that people will just drive around looking for a space.
Myth 7: Parking ratios can be easily looked up in a manual.
Myth 8: All households, even low-income ones, need parking.
Myth 9: Fewer parking spaces would be fine, if only we had decent transit.
Myth 10: Parking isnt just unglamorous, its unimportant.
Wired magazine has a good article on the latest thinking in traffic engineering: build roads that seem dangerous and they'll actually be safer. Think of it this way: the less contextual cues and more direct signage and markings you used to direct traffic, the less drivers will think about their choices and actions when they drive. Use less signage and require drivers to slow down just a bit and read the context of the situation and they will drive more intelligently and carefully. Experiments and studies so far have shown this to be true.
Most of the work and implementation in this area has gone on in Europe, but many people in the US are taking notice. Think of how many intersections or situations in the US you have driven through where you have gone into road sign and road marking overload - in many places putting in more signs just adds to the confusion and decreases safety.
The MTA is proposing a bunch of new rules, including a couple of stupid ones: a ban on photos anywhere in the subway and transit system, and a ban on changing between subway cars while the train is in motion. Go and submit your comments and tell them how dumb these ideas are (MTA wide - MTA wide general - Rules Of Conduct Comment).
Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Concerned MTA Customer:
Thank you for providing us with your opinion on the proposed changes to
the New York City Transit and Staten Island Railway Rules of Conduct.
In accordance with the rule-making procedures required under the State
Administrative Procedure Act, public comments on the proposed rules are
accepted during a 45-day period that begins when a notice of proposed
rulemaking is published in the New York State Register - the official
publication of the New York State Department of State.
The official 45 day comment period has commenced as of November 24,
2004. All comments submitted prior to and during the 45 day comment period
will be made part of the record and fully considered before any further
action is taken by the MTA Board.
Again, thank you for sharing your views
Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Customer (Chris Andrichak) - 12/09/2004 07:34 PM
I am against the ban against photos in the subway system and on other
MTA properties.
- I think it is unenforceable
- the New York City subway system is famous and gets millions of
tourists a year, many of which want to take pictures. The subway system
itself is an attraction for people and creating a climate of fear of
punishment will not help this city or the MTA economically or socially
- designating certain types and parts of structures Security sensitive
and enabling employees and police to use their judgment in not allowing
photos would be much more constructive and much more proactive and
enabling for your employees
I am also against the ban on moving between subway cars
- there are often situations where a person could feel uncomfortable
because of someone else, or something else in the car that they are in
and would need to move to another car while the train is in motion
- frequently crowded subway cars make it quite useful to move to
another car
- this rule is also quite unenforceable
The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on the decline in drivers license registrations among teenagers. This trend also goes beyond the growing popularity in graduated licensing systems that states such as California are starting to adopt.
"As high schools cut driver's education, fewer teens are getting behind the wheel. Nerves and costly private lessons also factor in the trend."
The perils of being a pedestrian. John Kelly's column in the Washington Post contains quite a good idea: being a pedestrian is definitely not 'pedestrian', how about a name change, something like 'American Heroes' of the crosswalk?
This certainly seems like a cartoon: the wrong way to get a car out of the harbor. How did the car get in there in the first place? (Courtesy of our friends over at the third rail)
Public transit and technology are slowly converging. Paying your bus fare with your mobile phone is interesting and possibly faster, but it is it worth the implementation cost? At what point do the economies of scale and the potential time savings make it worth the investment?
The Region Of Waterloo has a cool site with animated pictures explaining roundabouts (traffic circles):
"Traffic circles have been part of the transportation system in the United States since 1905, when the Columbus Circle designed by William Phelps Eno opened in New York City. Subsequently, many large circles or rotaries were built in Canada and the United States. The prevailing designs enabled highspeed merging and weaving of vehicles. Priority was given to entering vehicles, facilitating highspeed entries. High crash experience and congestion in the circles led to rotaries falling out of favor in North America after the mid1950s. Internationally, the experience with traffic circles was equally negative, with many countries experiencing circles that locked up as traffic volumes increased.
...A modern roundabout typically results in less negative environmental impacts than a signalized intersection because it creates shorter delays to motorists and shorter vehicle queues. The longer delays associated with traffic signals result in more vehicles idling for longer periods." (courtesy of Planetizen)
As needs in transportation spending have gone up but funding, especially from federal and state sources, have not kept pace, many places are looking locally to tax measures and bonding to fill in the gap. And as roads and suburban areas become more crowded and transit planning demands more funding, many voters are saying yes and ballot initiatives are coming at a record pace.
Hopefully on related are a growing number of States, especially in the West (think what you want about that) with medical marijuana laws or initiatives on the ballot (or even regulated legalization in Alaska). Adding another vice to the tax line up could be a good source of revenue for states with funding issues (which would basically be all of them). Somebody has to pay for those unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.
Don't write anything in a foreign language and leave it on an airplane, lest the paranoia overtake someone and the 'threat of terrorism' comes charging to the forefront. Heck, why don't we just raise the colored threat level, we don't know what it really means anyway...