Streetsblog Capitol Hill - Latest Comments

Re: CA Rep. Hunter: Roads Constitutionally Mandated, Transit Must Pay For Itself

Alan Stanley — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:12:41 -0000

He sounds like a dumb ass... so tell me Duncan, were there cars when the Constitution was written? Since these supposedly 'constitutional' postal roads date back to our founding fathers, I guess they just became equestrian trials. Yes, he has a lot to learn.. an awful lot to learn.

Re: RAND: Car-Sharing Could Cut Carbon Emissions From Cars By 1.7 Percent

Urban Reason — Tue, 15 May 2012 21:18:54 -0000

I think car sharing is great, but personally I can't see it being very relevant or pervasive in Los Angeles until autonomous vehicles start hitting the streets in the next few years. When we can summon a vehicle from a 'car-sharing' subscription service on our iPhones that doesn't require a driver or a license - I can see a lot of things changing.

Re: RAND: Car-Sharing Could Cut Carbon Emissions From Cars By 1.7 Percent

Andy Chow — Tue, 15 May 2012 20:02:20 -0000

I think that driverless vehicles could enhance sharing by having the ability to maneuver the vehicles to meet demand. Think of the scenario where there's a strong one way demand in car share. Unless the vehicles are moved to where the demand is, then there would be enough vehicles made available. The rental car industry hires a lot of people just to drive cars between the rental car locations.

Re: Walk Score Calculates City Bikeability, and Minneapolis Comes Out on Top

Robviking70 — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:18:26 -0000

Minneapolis really needs a weather-fator to degrade its score. No way people want to go biking from Dec. to April. It's a brutal climate to live in there.

Re: RAND: Car-Sharing Could Cut Carbon Emissions From Cars By 1.7 Percent

fj — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:00:30 -0000

Yep, car-share saves something; but, the one time I used it, it was awful since I am used to cycling around for virtually everything and the difficulties and potential danger using a car was nightmarish -- cost also -- and way outside my comfort zone; and, something that I'd use only as a last resort.

Cycling and net zero mobility rules!, and people should really start focusing on net zero methods and apparatus for traveling about and forget about cars. Cars do not fit in the future.

Just like Mao was probably responsible for the deaths of tens of millions with his bad ideas about land reforms, etc., the same goes for the current regime advocating heavy machinery transportation like cars, buses, trains, instead of very small light vehicles that can easily be powered by human power; though, potentially also by small fractional horsepower electric motors as well.

And, it makes absolutely no sense to consider moving the still existing one-half billion Chinese cyclists to transportation systems based on cars instead of advanced systems based on net zero vehicles.

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

fj — Tue, 15 May 2012 14:35:36 -0000

Payton, If walking is considered some sort of energy & greenhouse gas emissions baseline, where bicycles are about 3-4 times more efficient than walking, normal cycling should be considered net zero mobility as well as walking.

Near net zero might apply to vehicles that use a bit more technology with slightly larger environmental foot prints by incorporating auxiliary powering and other stuff perhaps to carry larger loads, etc.; also special systems footprints might also be considered providing much higher functionality with collision avoidance, powering, much higher performance, etc.; all of which should have minimal environmental footprints, build-out emissions, and very close to net zero energy usage or better.

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Payton — Tue, 15 May 2012 14:22:28 -0000

"Vision Zero" or a variant thereof has been adopted by many places, from Sweden and Australia to even Dubai. In the USA, the "Toward Zero Deaths" campaign has led at least six states to pledge to work towards eliminating road deaths.

I'm not sure what "near net zero mobility" is, though.

Re: From Minneapolis: Ten Street Design Solutions to Transform Your City

Asad137 — Tue, 15 May 2012 13:04:08 -0000

Some people bike year round anyway, like me (then again, my commute is only a couple miles, so I don't need to get as bundled up as some).

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

fj — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:33:51 -0000

The major reason many more people do not use net zero and near net zero mobility is because of the extreme danger of transportation systems based on cars; also the major way this extremely destructive method of travel secures its monopoly. This destructiveness, social justice, and the extreme value of human life -- it is truly bizarre that this requires affirmation -- is why zero deaths initiatives are so important.

What we are talking about is making manmade vehicles and environments totally safe which is ultimately an easy problem to solve. You just build them safe.

Broadly deployed net zero mobility is a major solution to accelerating climate change that increases the quality of life; and it makes absolutely no sense even considering moving the current 1/2 billion cyclists in China and elsewhere to transportation systems based on cars.

Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022
"
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012...
"

Re: Walk Score Calculates City Bikeability, and Minneapolis Comes Out on Top

HamTech87 — Tue, 15 May 2012 08:17:12 -0000

I was at the CNU conference last week, and it is remarkable how academics are using the Walk Score tools to address issues of public health.

Re: Walk Score Calculates City Bikeability, and Minneapolis Comes Out on Top

Khal Spencer — Tue, 15 May 2012 08:00:08 -0000

Hills should be less of a factor since one cannot control for hills. One can buy a bike with gears.

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Severin — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:57:46 -0000

Tanya, zero deaths is achievable, http://www.aviewfromthecyclepa...

Re: Walk Score Calculates City Bikeability, and Minneapolis Comes Out on Top

Kenny Easwaran — Mon, 14 May 2012 22:21:40 -0000

Of course, this has the same problem as their transit score that they recently rolled out - if they're just counting how far you are from the nearest bus line or bike lane, then they aren't paying attention to where it goes. Connectivity of bike lanes can definitely make a big difference for how useful they are.

Of course, it's also not very amenable to an automated numerical evaluation, so this start makes sense.

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Nim — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:50:07 -0000

Two states -- Washington and Minnesota-- already have versions of vision zero. It would be interesting research to see whether that has led to a reduction in fatalities, or a faster reduction than the national average since the articulation of those goals, given that U.S. road deaths have been coming down sharply in recent years. Chicago presently has about twice the annual traffic deaths per capita as NYC, which would be nice to keep track of given this readership's preference for rhetoric over reality.

Re: Walk Score Calculates City Bikeability, and Minneapolis Comes Out on Top

Noname — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:08:50 -0000

This really should be adjusted for weather.

Re: Walk Score Calculates City Bikeability, and Minneapolis Comes Out on Top

Paul — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:54:05 -0000

Amsterdam would come in with 1000 points on this scale ;) This is really cool though. Thanks!

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Tanya Snyder — Mon, 14 May 2012 16:09:51 -0000

Zero deaths is just rhetoric, but it's helpful -- it dares other cities to set the bar high and stop accepting traffic fatalities as inevitable. Almost 33,000 people died on U.S. roads last year and the DOT called it progress.

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Ben from bed stuy — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:08:43 -0000

Good for you Chicago! I wish our mayor took safety as seriously as does Chicago's mayor and dot chief.

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Jeff — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:58:32 -0000

Alright, so it's game on! Who can be the first American city to reach Vision Zero? Ready... GO!

Did you hear me, NYC? Go! NOW! We can't lose to Chicago!

Re: Chicago Aims for Zero Traffic Deaths by 2022

Guest — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:01:38 -0000

Philadelphia is removing its bike lane in Chinatown because it might slow down traffic a bit. We're like Chicago, right?

Re: Census Breaks the News We Already Knew: The Exurbs Are History

Buddha on a Bike — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:45:18 -0000

As a 25 year old, I can say anecdotally that I think there is a real change in desire. Young people are far less interested in owning a home (I wonder why), and far more interested in living a sustainable, car-free life in urban centers. In San Francisco, proximity to good public transit sky rockets rental prices. I moved into the City from the suburbs and I'm here to stay. Most of my friends would if they could, but unemployment is keeping them from city centers. I think this generation is seeing the real draw-backs to sprawl, and this will be a continuing trend.

Re: Are Americans Driving Less Because They’re Working Less?

Spokker — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:28:49 -0000

"High gas prices are still causing people to leave the car in the garage and take transit."

In the short-run and for those who still have jobs. In the long-run they will switch to more fuel efficient vehicles unless transit really wows them, and transit doesn't do much of that in America.

And the unemployment rate is decreasing because people have given up looking for work. Not only are they not commuting to a job, they are not even travelling to job interviews.

Re: With or Without Tougher CAFE Rules, Today’s Gas Tax Is Unsustainable

Spokker — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:25:40 -0000

I agree with Austrian on user fees, but I think a VMT would be better than an excise or percentage tax on gas. You decouple the user fee from the price of a volatile commodity and establish a better link between usage and funding for maintenance and you're not dicked around by fuel standards. It's not perfect, though.

The implementation may generate some concern for privacy advocates. Perhaps instead of a GPS unit usage could be reported while random drivers are spot-checked for compliance. Fines would cover those not caught.

Re: With or Without Tougher CAFE Rules, Today’s Gas Tax Is Unsustainable

NUAir — Fri, 11 May 2012 04:27:33 -0000

AustrianSchool,

Your kidding right? A percentage based gas tax? You realize that oil prices are on of the most volatile products? What happens to highway funding if the price of crude drops from $100/b to $40/b? You could end up bankrupting our entire transportation system in a year. Not to mention there would be way too much temptation for politicians to draw off the fund when prices are high...which is what happens all to frequently in Europe.

You also miss the point that as demand drops the gas tax can't fill in the revenue gap, therefore other methods of revenue collection are required such as tolls, user fees, congestion charging, vehicle registration, etc...

Your argument that gas tax is fair is unrealistic as a hybrid Honda Civic does just as much damage to the road as a gasoline or diesel Civic and creates the identical congestion but using a gas tax it would pay a fraction of the cost. Let alone the hybrid Civic already receives an environmental incentive through lower licensing fees so you are essentially giving it a double credit for fuel use reduction. If you want to discourage the use of conventional fuels that's fine. Continue using a gas tax but make that an environmental tax and reallocate those revenues to subsidize/encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles. But remember that a large portion of a cars environmental impact is related to production not use, so encouraging people to trade in vehicles before they are ready to be retired to encourage the use of more efficient vehicles is actually not a benefit for the environment.

Re: With or Without Tougher CAFE Rules, Today’s Gas Tax Is Unsustainable

AustrianSchool — Fri, 11 May 2012 01:38:39 -0000

Not this nonsense again. The gas tax is nearly the ideal way to pay for road related costs from surface repairs to highway patrol salaries. It makes user pay for what they consume and puts largest cost on those that do the most damage to the road system. Heavy vehicles cause more wear and tear, and consume more gas per mile, thus paying more tax. High efficiency cars are light in weight, do less damage per mile, and pay less tax. What this means is that as time goes on, and we shift to driving smaller cars less miles, the amount of money we spend on our road system should natually DECLINE. That's bad news for special intersts banking on ever increasing spending, but good news for our economy .

What we really need to do is make the gas tax a PERCENTAGE of the gas price rather than a fixed amount per gallon. This way, as the price of fuel increase, the amount of revenue collected will keep up with the increasing costs of our highway system.