Thursday, April 12, 2012
The De-Bikification of Beijing
Pity, the citizens of Beijing. Obsessed with the status symbols of consumer culture, they are furiously ditching their bicycles for cars. They will soon get what they asked for, and they won't like it.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Miracle on Washington Street
A few weeks ago, road cyclists received a miracle. It was on February 27th to be exact.
On that day, a Georgia Senator--one who previously said that we need a law to keep bicycles out of the way of motorists--became an advocate for bicycles!
At a
To their credit, leaders from Georgia Bikes! worked to maintain a constructive relationship with Senator Miller. They sought compromise and got one.
Miller accepted their watered-down amendment which substituted the outright ban of two-abreast riding with a vaguely-worded requirement for cyclists not to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic.
While the amended bill raised a host of questions about enforce-ability and other unintended consequences, Miller could rely on the fact that the same kind of vague limitation on cycling was already on the books in nine other states. Surely its passage into law would allow him and SB 468's co-sponsors to claim a win on behalf of their motorist constituents.
With the bill passing unanimously through committee and apparently destined for a vote in the full Senate, Miller told Georgia Bikes! the following Monday that he would not pursue passage of his bill and would instead work with Georgia Bikes! on the implementation of a Complete Streets policy. Complete Streets policies emphasize that public roads should be designed for moving people, not just automobiles, and should include facilities that improve safety and access for transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists of all ages and abilities.
Some characterize Miller's intentions as always in keeping the interest of cyclists foremost, claiming that he rides a bike himself.
Oddly, he never mentioned that about himself during the hearing as he faced a long line of citizen-bicyclists criticizing his bill. For a two-term Senator, one would think Miller would have seized the opportunity to establish his credibility with this assembly of bicyclists.
As I described previously in this blog, Miller repeatedly acted in ways that seem to belie his stated intentions. Would bicyclists expect any more from someone who leads the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association?
Beyond the potent persuasive powers of Georgia Bikes!, what could account for Miller's dramatic turnaround? How did the discussion shift so dramatically, away from getting bikers out of motorists' way to developing streets that are conducive to non-automobile transportation?
For now it's best to leave the sleeping dog lie and celebrate the fact that we are not all riding in a line.
And to Senator Miller: thank you for seeing the light. I hope to see everyone at the GA Rides to the Capitol.
- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!
On that day, a Georgia Senator--one who previously said that we need a law to keep bicycles out of the way of motorists--became an advocate for bicycles!
At a
To their credit, leaders from Georgia Bikes! worked to maintain a constructive relationship with Senator Miller. They sought compromise and got one.
Miller accepted their watered-down amendment which substituted the outright ban of two-abreast riding with a vaguely-worded requirement for cyclists not to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic.
While the amended bill raised a host of questions about enforce-ability and other unintended consequences, Miller could rely on the fact that the same kind of vague limitation on cycling was already on the books in nine other states. Surely its passage into law would allow him and SB 468's co-sponsors to claim a win on behalf of their motorist constituents.
With the bill passing unanimously through committee and apparently destined for a vote in the full Senate, Miller told Georgia Bikes! the following Monday that he would not pursue passage of his bill and would instead work with Georgia Bikes! on the implementation of a Complete Streets policy. Complete Streets policies emphasize that public roads should be designed for moving people, not just automobiles, and should include facilities that improve safety and access for transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists of all ages and abilities.
Some characterize Miller's intentions as always in keeping the interest of cyclists foremost, claiming that he rides a bike himself.
Oddly, he never mentioned that about himself during the hearing as he faced a long line of citizen-bicyclists criticizing his bill. For a two-term Senator, one would think Miller would have seized the opportunity to establish his credibility with this assembly of bicyclists.
As I described previously in this blog, Miller repeatedly acted in ways that seem to belie his stated intentions. Would bicyclists expect any more from someone who leads the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association?
Beyond the potent persuasive powers of Georgia Bikes!, what could account for Miller's dramatic turnaround? How did the discussion shift so dramatically, away from getting bikers out of motorists' way to developing streets that are conducive to non-automobile transportation?
For now it's best to leave the sleeping dog lie and celebrate the fact that we are not all riding in a line.
And to Senator Miller: thank you for seeing the light. I hope to see everyone at the GA Rides to the Capitol.
- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Georgia Senate Taking Bikers for a Ride
I'll post here again when I learn more about this welcome and unexpected turnaround!
As SB 468--the bill which originally proposed to curtail two-abreast bicycling in Georgia--sailed through the Senate Transportation Committee last week and makes its way to the Rules Committee, confusion reigns over the future of road cycling in Georgia. For cyclists, our remaining options are very limited.
Georgia Bikes! has published its current advocacy position on its web site. Thankfully, they have negotiated with Senator Butch Miller for the removal of the bill's language regarding two abreast bicycling. Instead, the amended bill contains this curious provision:
Persons riding bicycles and electric assisted bicycles shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.
Depending on who you ask, this could mean a lot, or nothing. Some point to the fact that similar language is already on the books in Colorado and seven other states, and that the results have been inconsequential for cyclists. After all, they say, this simply places into the law what we cyclists normally practice using our own judgement and common sense.
As written, however, it is vague and does not explain what normal and reasonable means. Thus it raises two risks:
- It will create confusion for all concerned parties and is impossible to enforce consistently. One can easily imagine the same confusion among law enforcement officers. Gosh, Officer, we didn't realize that the traffic behind us wasn't normal and reasonable.
- In future cases of automobile-bicycle accidents, this could provide a means for motorists to avoid responsibility when they otherwise would be found to be at fault.
Georgia Bikes!, while continuing to work "in good faith" with Senator Miller, states that they are not actively opposing the current amended version of SB 468. They are holding out hopes that they can extract further concessions from Sen. Miller.
Senator Miller and SB 468's co-sponsors want to demonstrate to motorists that they have acted to get bikers out of their way. Georgia Bikes! is finessing their way into a compromise which could leave us in a legal Twilight Zone.
This Bill now has plenty of momentum in the Legislature and stands a good chance of becoming law. Georgia Bikes! other option is to fight to kill this bill. Under the current political conditions at the State Capitol, they would probably lose.
Activists not associated with Georgia Bikes! has started an online petition opposing SB 468. I still don't know what the right course of action should be.
Senator Miller and SB 468's co-sponsors want to demonstrate to motorists that they have acted to get bikers out of their way. Georgia Bikes! is finessing their way into a compromise which could leave us in a legal Twilight Zone.
This Bill now has plenty of momentum in the Legislature and stands a good chance of becoming law. Georgia Bikes! other option is to fight to kill this bill. Under the current political conditions at the State Capitol, they would probably lose.
Activists not associated with Georgia Bikes! has started an online petition opposing SB 468. I still don't know what the right course of action should be.
All I know is, Georgia's roads are littered with loose screws.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Georgia Bikers, Fall In Line!
As for the state of bicycling in Georgia, it's more like one step forward, two steps back. Yesterday I responded to an urgent call from the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition for bicyclists to attend a meeting of the Senate Transportation Committee at the Georgia State Capitol.
They met to consider SB 468, a bill that would require bicyclists to ride single file in the presence of other traffic. Specifically, cyclists must ride single file if there are approaching vehicles within 300 feet of them.
The bill's primary sponsor is Butch Miller. He explained that the bill is a response to the many concerns about safety that he and other Senators have heard from their constituents.
With respect to the 3-foot passing law that the Georgia Legislature passed last Summer, Miller said, motorists now find themselves stuck behind packs of cyclists, sometimes prompting them to make unsafe maneuvers...even to cross the double yellow center line to pass the cyclists. By Miller's reasoning, a prior law designed to safeguard cyclists necessitates new restrictions on the same cyclists, because motorists, after all, have jobs to get to.
Seriously. He cited this matter as a threat to the economy.
None of SB 468's cosponsors are cyclists themselves, and all expressed amusement/befuddlement with spandex cycling attire. I wanted to ask whether any of them were hunters.
Interestingly, Butch Miller is also the Chairman of the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association. Steve Gooch of Dahlonega acknowledged the importance of cycling to the North Georgia economy (e.g., the Six Gap Century) but insisted that something be done about the safety issues presented by cyclists riding on their two-lane roads.
One of the Senators asked how it is that a bicyclist can discern whether an oncoming vehicle is within 300 feet. Miller suggested that the bicyclist use a mirror.
Miller insisted that he does not wish to rush this legislation and did want to hear from all parties concerned. He accepted a "friendly amendment" that limits the new single file riding rule only to two-lane roads.
The Committee heard from seven cyclists and cycling advocates. No one spoke in support of the bill.
Then Chairman Jeff Mullis asked for a motion, Butch Miller motioned to pass the bill, Democrat Doug Stoner seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous voice vote.
Now it is heading to the State Senate's Rules Committee.
As written, SB 468 will jeopardize:
- Group rides
- BRAG, the Wilson 100 and other organized events
- Racing team rides and double pace lines
- Parents riding alongside their children
- The ABC's BeltLine Bike Tour
- Tucker, Six Flags, Pizza, Airport rides? Fuggetahboutit!
As the late author William Gibson once wrote,
The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed.Here in Georgia, the forces of ignorance, fear and sloth are conspiring to keep Georgia on the tail of that distribution.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Walking the BeltLine in Someone Else's Shoes
Today, on the birthday of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I reflect on his call for us all to stand in the other person's shoes, to see the world in their eyes, to feel their pain.
This reminds me of a nasty screed against the Atlanta BeltLine project (and other transit projects to be funded by the proposed Transportation Investment Act sales tax) predicated on the unsubstantiated grounds that the developers are oppressing black people with it. I recently entered into a short online exchange with a defender of the article but found no desire on his part to enter into a dialog with me, even to temporarily dispense with the use of emotionally-charged hyperbole such as "Jim Crow" and "white supremacist."
I was to uncritically accept his, and the article's, viewpoint, else we had nothing else useful to say to each other. It frustrates and saddens me, to be unable to bridge our differences on this, a most important development for the City of Atlanta and for the region.
King's advice helps me to understand this. I have no doubts that the BeltLine should be built. Still, I am open to the possibility of inequities in the way that the project expenditures are being distributed, and to seek remedies for those inequities.
Many underprivileged people have depended on MARTA as their sole form of transportation and have a hard time accepting the long-term promises of the BeltLine and the expenditures it now requires.
They have suffered disproportionately from MARTA's recent fare increases and cuts in bus services. It's hard to explain how an expanded transit system serving a broader constituency of patrons benefits everyone, while they are currently struggling to find affordable transportation to their jobs, schools, and so on.
It may not be Jim Crow or the work of white supremacists, but it hurts nonetheless.
- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!
This reminds me of a nasty screed against the Atlanta BeltLine project (and other transit projects to be funded by the proposed Transportation Investment Act sales tax) predicated on the unsubstantiated grounds that the developers are oppressing black people with it. I recently entered into a short online exchange with a defender of the article but found no desire on his part to enter into a dialog with me, even to temporarily dispense with the use of emotionally-charged hyperbole such as "Jim Crow" and "white supremacist."
I was to uncritically accept his, and the article's, viewpoint, else we had nothing else useful to say to each other. It frustrates and saddens me, to be unable to bridge our differences on this, a most important development for the City of Atlanta and for the region.
King's advice helps me to understand this. I have no doubts that the BeltLine should be built. Still, I am open to the possibility of inequities in the way that the project expenditures are being distributed, and to seek remedies for those inequities.
Many underprivileged people have depended on MARTA as their sole form of transportation and have a hard time accepting the long-term promises of the BeltLine and the expenditures it now requires.
They have suffered disproportionately from MARTA's recent fare increases and cuts in bus services. It's hard to explain how an expanded transit system serving a broader constituency of patrons benefits everyone, while they are currently struggling to find affordable transportation to their jobs, schools, and so on.
It may not be Jim Crow or the work of white supremacists, but it hurts nonetheless.
- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
A Bitter Medicine for Treating Traffic Congestion
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this blog are expressly my own and are not endorsed by my employer or my employer's partners and supporters.
For many years Metro Atlanta has had some of the most congested roads and highways in the country. In response, State officials want to provide optional toll lanes on area highways that are priced according to the amount of demand for those lanes. Their first attempt with the I-85 "Express" lanes in Gwinnett County has ignited a backlash, with motorists and their elected representatives demanding their removal.
By pursuing congestion-based pricing, the State is taking a reasonable approach. Officials have nonetheless failed to recognize the psychological trauma this exacts on Georgia motorists, habituated to a daily commute where their expenses are all but forgotten.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2010 Urban Mobility Report, Atlanta ranks 11th among the top-100 cities for traffic congestion. The average Atlanta-area driver spent about 43 hours struck in traffic, in addition to their “normal” commuting time. For many, that exceeds the amount of paid vacation time they receive from their employers.
This actually represents an improvement over previous years' rankings, but any relief this provides is probably temporary. State and regional planners realize that Atlanta's outsized unemployment rate means that fewer people are commuting, and that traffic congestion will probably increase in the coming years. During peak travel periods on the highways, even the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are clogged. This has them searching for answers.
One thing they do know is, we cannot continue to build our way out of this mess. Since the early 1960’s, transportation experts have warned against the commonly-held notion that we can solve traffic congestion by building new roads and widening others. Back then, transportation expert Anthony Downs stated it most succinctly:
…peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity.
Now, publications such as this research paper published in October’s American Economic Review are revealing the complexities of traffic congestion and the underlying psychology of the motorist. They even have a term for it: induced demand. There is such an enormous latent demand for road space, some believe, that whenever a measure is taken that moves a commuter out of his or her automobile, another one quickly grabs the open lane.
Historian Lewis Mumford said it most memorably:
Historian Lewis Mumford said it most memorably:
Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.
If urban congestion cannot be addressed by increasing road capacity, then what should be done?
Georgia’s Express lane project is based on the success of similar projects in other U.S. cities and also congestion-based toll projects in London and Stockholm. Georgia’s Express lane project gives commuters on I-85 more choices.
They can choose to pay extra for a reliable commute time in a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, the cost depending on the current average speed in the lane. As the speed decreases due to congestion in the lane, the toll to additional drivers entering the lane rises.
For example, taking the entire 15 miles of Express Lane for your evening commute through Gwinnett County on November 11th would have saved you 12 minutes and cost a whopping $1.85.
Additionally, these same commuters have access to an expanded network of inter-county Xpress buses operated by GRTA, and three new park-and-ride lots.
Motorists, long-accustomed to taxpayer-funded highway projects aimed at accommodating more traffic, are chaffing at the notion of paying a fee for the privilege of getting an unimpeded trip down I-85, even when traffic is heaviest.
Their frustrations, while understandable, do not justify the elimination of the Express lanes. Like all projects of such large scale, complexity and scope, the I-85 Express lanes have their share of start-up problems, and most can be corrected.
More importantly, we struggle with the notion of paying-as-we-drive. Although the daily commute by automobile exacts real costs, costs that accrue while we drive, we are psychologically disconnected from them. We usually buy fuel only once or twice a week. Maintenance and repairs? Once or twice a year. The same applies for insurance.
The price of congestion falls into this list of automobile-related variable expenses. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that for this wasted time and fuel, each commuter spent roughly $1,100. The same study estimates that traffic congestion cost Atlanta’s employers nearly $2.5 billion in lost productivity.
Conceptually, these costs could be charged to the driver while on the road, as if they were operating a taxi meter. If we were already accustomed to paying-as-we-drive, the Georgia Express lanes would not raise nearly the stink that it has. Drivers would more easily understand the cost of their commute and be better-informed to make the choices that serve them best.
If Atlanta-area motorists don't want to pay congestion-based tolls on the highways, then they shouldn't. But they will still pay for congestion.
Georgia’s Express lane project is based on the success of similar projects in other U.S. cities and also congestion-based toll projects in London and Stockholm. Georgia’s Express lane project gives commuters on I-85 more choices.
They can choose to pay extra for a reliable commute time in a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, the cost depending on the current average speed in the lane. As the speed decreases due to congestion in the lane, the toll to additional drivers entering the lane rises.
For example, taking the entire 15 miles of Express Lane for your evening commute through Gwinnett County on November 11th would have saved you 12 minutes and cost a whopping $1.85.
Additionally, these same commuters have access to an expanded network of inter-county Xpress buses operated by GRTA, and three new park-and-ride lots.
Motorists, long-accustomed to taxpayer-funded highway projects aimed at accommodating more traffic, are chaffing at the notion of paying a fee for the privilege of getting an unimpeded trip down I-85, even when traffic is heaviest.
Their frustrations, while understandable, do not justify the elimination of the Express lanes. Like all projects of such large scale, complexity and scope, the I-85 Express lanes have their share of start-up problems, and most can be corrected.
More importantly, we struggle with the notion of paying-as-we-drive. Although the daily commute by automobile exacts real costs, costs that accrue while we drive, we are psychologically disconnected from them. We usually buy fuel only once or twice a week. Maintenance and repairs? Once or twice a year. The same applies for insurance.
The price of congestion falls into this list of automobile-related variable expenses. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that for this wasted time and fuel, each commuter spent roughly $1,100. The same study estimates that traffic congestion cost Atlanta’s employers nearly $2.5 billion in lost productivity.
Conceptually, these costs could be charged to the driver while on the road, as if they were operating a taxi meter. If we were already accustomed to paying-as-we-drive, the Georgia Express lanes would not raise nearly the stink that it has. Drivers would more easily understand the cost of their commute and be better-informed to make the choices that serve them best.
If Atlanta-area motorists don't want to pay congestion-based tolls on the highways, then they shouldn't. But they will still pay for congestion.
They already do.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Let There be Light
It is time to reflect upon something our federal government did right and on the admirable way it was reported by the NY Times.
On Thursday the Times ran a story about new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.
Since the Energy Independence and Security Act was originally passed in 2007 and signed by President Bush, most news outlets reported how it will outlaw the beloved incandescent light bulb. Congressional Republicans earlier this year tried unsuccessfully to block the law from taking effect, claiming that our nanny government was once again overstepping its authority and limiting our freedoms beyond reason.
The Act is one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen in a long time. First, it addresses a real problem. Our country lacks a clear strategy for growing our capacity to generate electricity in order to keep up with anticipated demand, and much of that demand comes from lighting our homes, schools and offices.
Second, the law is reasonable. Instead of picking products for us to buy, it merely sets efficiency standards for those products. The lighting standards resemble the fuel economy standards it has been setting for automobiles since the seventies.
There is no reason why we shouldn't have better lighting for less money. Today's incandescent light bulb is buggy whip technology. Were Thomas Edison still around he would have no trouble recognizing one of our bulbs, despite his having commercialized the first one over 130 years ago.
Third, the the law is already proving effective. As the NY Times effectively illustrates, the law has prompted manufacturers to introduce a dazzling array of new lighting technologies and products. Despite what the law's opponents claim it has given us more choices, and it will only get better over time.
The law also requires new product labeling to allow us to more easily base our choices on the cost of the bulb, the cost of the energy it uses, and the amount of light it produces. Lighting manufacturers now have an unbiased set of rules for describing product value to their customers.
Score a small but notable victory for good government. Thank heavens the congressional dim-bulbs were defeated, although I wonder whether their aim wasn't so much about scoring a legislative victory as it was about scoring points with their government-phobic constituents.
On Thursday the Times ran a story about new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.
Since the Energy Independence and Security Act was originally passed in 2007 and signed by President Bush, most news outlets reported how it will outlaw the beloved incandescent light bulb. Congressional Republicans earlier this year tried unsuccessfully to block the law from taking effect, claiming that our nanny government was once again overstepping its authority and limiting our freedoms beyond reason.
The Act is one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen in a long time. First, it addresses a real problem. Our country lacks a clear strategy for growing our capacity to generate electricity in order to keep up with anticipated demand, and much of that demand comes from lighting our homes, schools and offices.
Second, the law is reasonable. Instead of picking products for us to buy, it merely sets efficiency standards for those products. The lighting standards resemble the fuel economy standards it has been setting for automobiles since the seventies.
There is no reason why we shouldn't have better lighting for less money. Today's incandescent light bulb is buggy whip technology. Were Thomas Edison still around he would have no trouble recognizing one of our bulbs, despite his having commercialized the first one over 130 years ago.
Third, the the law is already proving effective. As the NY Times effectively illustrates, the law has prompted manufacturers to introduce a dazzling array of new lighting technologies and products. Despite what the law's opponents claim it has given us more choices, and it will only get better over time.
The law also requires new product labeling to allow us to more easily base our choices on the cost of the bulb, the cost of the energy it uses, and the amount of light it produces. Lighting manufacturers now have an unbiased set of rules for describing product value to their customers.
Score a small but notable victory for good government. Thank heavens the congressional dim-bulbs were defeated, although I wonder whether their aim wasn't so much about scoring a legislative victory as it was about scoring points with their government-phobic constituents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)