Work is well underway on the fall issue of InTransition, which should be in the mail in November. If you’ve changed your address since the spring, be sure to update your contact information on our website or send us an e-mail letting us know what’s new.
Here’s a look at some of the top stories in our next issue:
Transit & the Economic Crisis: Even with ridership at record levels, transit agencies around the country are facing budgetary nightmares due to the economic downturn. A look at how they’re getting through it.
Connected Vehicles: Along with hybridization/electrification, some say connected vehicle technologies represent the greatest change the auto industry will see in the decades to come.
Cab-Sharing: Like matchmaking services for taxi riders, these new businesses are cropping up across the Web. Will they last?
Digital Billboards: With far more revenue potential than traditional static billboards, new digital signs are becoming more common along the nation's highways.
Please note, not all of the material in the printed edition will be available online. To sign up for a FREE subscription to InTransition, just fill out the simple form on our website.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
NJ the Next to Debut Cutting-Edge Traffic Technologies
This article first appeared in Mobility Matters, a regional newsletter also published by the NJTPA.
By Karl Vilacoba
Gazing out the window of an English pub, a light bulb went on in Richard Nassi’s head—three actually, in an arrangement that would become one of the most statistically effective traffic signals in America.
Nassi was traveling with his wife, who was in the U.K. on business, but his mind was on a terrible crash that occurred back home in Tucson, Ariz. Five youths were struck by a vehicle while crossing a street in 1998, killing two of them. The driver fled the scene and, despite the best efforts of police, was never caught.
Nassi, Tucson’s traffic administrator at the time, caught a glimpse of an unconventional beacon the English call a “level crossing signal,” and began jotting down notes on how it might be adapted to prevent future tragedies in Tucson. “It started there on the back of a napkin and flew across the Atlantic with me to the U.S.,” he said.
The High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) debuted a year later in Tucson and has since spread to several other states, including an upcoming site in New Jersey. Although it is still considered an experimental technology, the HAWK will soon be listed in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the standard for signs, signals and pavement markings in the U.S.
The HAWK consists of three lights that overhang traffic, typically at mid-block crosswalks and unsignalized intersections. The HAWK remains dark until activated by a bicyclist or pedestrian. The beacon initially flashes yellow, then shines solid yellow, warning drivers to prepare to stop. It then turns solid red while showing the pedestrian a “Walk” sign. Finally, alternating flashing red lights indicate that drivers can proceed if the pedestrian has safely crossed.
A study of HAWKs in Tucson showed crashes were reduced by 30 percent and the compliance rate by drivers was 97 percent, better than any other American traffic signal, Nassi said. The only apparent confusion by motorists—some remained stopped as the red lights flashed.
“If you’re worried about delays, it’s an issue,” Nassi said, “but if you’re worried about pedestrian safety, it doesn’t hurt one bit.”
Unfortunately, a fatal accident took place at what will be the first HAWK site in New Jersey. About three years ago, a mother and two children were struck by a motorist while crossing Route 27 in Roselle, killing one of the youths, according to the New Jersey Departmentof Transportation (NJDOT). A crosswalk and standard flashing beacon were installed at the site a few months later, but drivers still weren’t yielding to pedestrians on the busy four-lane highway. A HAWK is expected to be installed on the site soon, helping people walk and bike across safely.
Another new pedestrian crossing technology that will soon see action in New Jersey is the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), sometimes called the Enhancer. The RRFB was first piloted in St. Petersburg, Fla., in 2004, and was approved for interim use at crossings by the FHWA last summer. “The RRFB’s very high compliance rates are previously unheard of for any device other than a full traffic signal and a ‘HAWK’ hybrid signal, both of which stop traffic with steady red signal indications,” the FHWA noted in a memo on the beacon’s approval.
The mid-block crossing beacons feature super bright LED lights that flash rapidly in a “stuttering” pattern that’s hard for motorists to miss. St. Petersburg reports a 17 percent drop in pedestrian crashes since they started using RRFBs, and in observations at 19 test locations in the city, 82 percent of drivers stopped once the system was activated.
In northern New Jersey, RRFBs will be installed near the Metropark train station in Edison and on Route 4 in Elmwood Park.
Photos: Top right, A High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) in Tucson, Ariz. (Photo courtesy Tucson DOT). Above left, Enhancer beacons feature bright, rapidly flashing LED lights that are hard for drivers to miss (Photo courtesy City of St. Petersburg).
By Karl Vilacoba
Gazing out the window of an English pub, a light bulb went on in Richard Nassi’s head—three actually, in an arrangement that would become one of the most statistically effective traffic signals in America.
Nassi was traveling with his wife, who was in the U.K. on business, but his mind was on a terrible crash that occurred back home in Tucson, Ariz. Five youths were struck by a vehicle while crossing a street in 1998, killing two of them. The driver fled the scene and, despite the best efforts of police, was never caught.
Nassi, Tucson’s traffic administrator at the time, caught a glimpse of an unconventional beacon the English call a “level crossing signal,” and began jotting down notes on how it might be adapted to prevent future tragedies in Tucson. “It started there on the back of a napkin and flew across the Atlantic with me to the U.S.,” he said.
The High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) debuted a year later in Tucson and has since spread to several other states, including an upcoming site in New Jersey. Although it is still considered an experimental technology, the HAWK will soon be listed in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the standard for signs, signals and pavement markings in the U.S.
The HAWK consists of three lights that overhang traffic, typically at mid-block crosswalks and unsignalized intersections. The HAWK remains dark until activated by a bicyclist or pedestrian. The beacon initially flashes yellow, then shines solid yellow, warning drivers to prepare to stop. It then turns solid red while showing the pedestrian a “Walk” sign. Finally, alternating flashing red lights indicate that drivers can proceed if the pedestrian has safely crossed.
A study of HAWKs in Tucson showed crashes were reduced by 30 percent and the compliance rate by drivers was 97 percent, better than any other American traffic signal, Nassi said. The only apparent confusion by motorists—some remained stopped as the red lights flashed.
“If you’re worried about delays, it’s an issue,” Nassi said, “but if you’re worried about pedestrian safety, it doesn’t hurt one bit.”
Unfortunately, a fatal accident took place at what will be the first HAWK site in New Jersey. About three years ago, a mother and two children were struck by a motorist while crossing Route 27 in Roselle, killing one of the youths, according to the New Jersey Departmentof Transportation (NJDOT). A crosswalk and standard flashing beacon were installed at the site a few months later, but drivers still weren’t yielding to pedestrians on the busy four-lane highway. A HAWK is expected to be installed on the site soon, helping people walk and bike across safely.
Another new pedestrian crossing technology that will soon see action in New Jersey is the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), sometimes called the Enhancer. The RRFB was first piloted in St. Petersburg, Fla., in 2004, and was approved for interim use at crossings by the FHWA last summer. “The RRFB’s very high compliance rates are previously unheard of for any device other than a full traffic signal and a ‘HAWK’ hybrid signal, both of which stop traffic with steady red signal indications,” the FHWA noted in a memo on the beacon’s approval.The mid-block crossing beacons feature super bright LED lights that flash rapidly in a “stuttering” pattern that’s hard for motorists to miss. St. Petersburg reports a 17 percent drop in pedestrian crashes since they started using RRFBs, and in observations at 19 test locations in the city, 82 percent of drivers stopped once the system was activated.
In northern New Jersey, RRFBs will be installed near the Metropark train station in Edison and on Route 4 in Elmwood Park.
Photos: Top right, A High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) in Tucson, Ariz. (Photo courtesy Tucson DOT). Above left, Enhancer beacons feature bright, rapidly flashing LED lights that are hard for drivers to miss (Photo courtesy City of St. Petersburg).
Monday, June 1, 2009
InTransition Recognized by NJSPJ
InTransition Managing Editor Karl Vilacoba took first place in the Magazines -- Business Reporting category in the New Jersey Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists’ 2008 Excellence in Journalism Awards.Vilacoba’s winning story, “The Devils in the Details,” discussed the transportation challenges involved with opening the new Prudential Center in downtown Newark. The piece appeared in the summer 2008 issue.
The feature was the lead article in a package of stories called “Take Me Out to the Ballgame,” which examined the planning, obstacles and investments needed to move huge crowds of people to sports stadiums in an orderly way. Other story topics included the transportation preparations behind the Indy 500 and the debate over what mass transit services should be available for the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium.
The contest was open to any magazine that published in New Jersey or wrote about a New Jersey topic in 2008. To view the full list of winners, visit http://www.njspj.org/contest_winners/08events.htm.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Shoup Shows Cities How to “Just Say No” to Parking
By Josh Stephens
Anyone who has ever eaten the exhaust of a Lamborghini understands the visceral charms of driving. Its appeal lies similarly in the curves of the Big Sur Highway, the preening queues on the Sunset Strip, and the anticipatory thunder of a NASCAR starting line.
The notion of a “love affair with cars” has gone from metaphor to cliché to hardened myth in the course of the past century, and even the dowdiest of America’s engineers, transportation planners and public officials have been seduced into serving the auto’s every need. Meanwhile, parking, which is the obvious, and necessary, corollary to driving, gets only whispered about, like condoms at the back of a drug store. Indeed, the most shocking claim in Professor Don Shoup’s magnum opus The High Cost of Free Parking is not that cities have implemented bad policies -- that happens all the time for all sorts of reasons -- but that almost no one has bothered to study those policies.
As it turns out, every car on the road equates to roughly seven patches of asphalt off the road. Cars get stored at home, at work, at the grocery store, and all about town. They take up valuable real estate, and, even then, any given space is more likely to be empty than not, whether they come in the form of flat expanses of asphalt or towering monoliths of concrete. They amount to the greatest, most pointless failure in American planning and design. Were parking not an aesthetic crime, it would, at the very least, be a sin against efficiency.
Yes, call me biased. But to say that a transportation writer shouldn’t descry parking lots is like saying a crime reporter shouldn’t be opposed to murder.
For all the effort that planners exert to create regulations and, on occasion, envision better cities, their approach to parking has been based on specious assumptions and utter irrationality. Why measure peak annual parking rather than averages? Why give away desirable spaces for free? Who knows what an abattoir is, much less how many parking spaces it needs? Arbitrary minimum parking requirements have not only stretched cities out physically -- so that buildings are enshrouded by surface parking lots and therefore separated from each other -- but also stretched them financially. The costs that parking imposes are in the price of every bag of Cheetos at K-Mart, every minute stuck in suburban traffic, and, indirectly, in lost revenue to cities.
It’s tempting to think that in the postmodern world that we’ve outgrown paradigm shifts, but Professor Shoup has done his best to give us one. He calls for a dramatic reinterpretation of the ills and possibilities of parking, and he’s kind enough to prescribe some compelling solutions: higher street parking rates, communal lots, maximums instead of minimums, parking benefit districts, and the rest. The ball is now in the public officials’ court. My article is but the latest (though perhaps longest) in a series of articles dedicated to Shoup’s studies, so no planner or city engineer has any excuse not to consider his prescriptions.
Shoup himself has taken enthusiastically to the lecture circuit, translating dense, statistics-laden work into a call to action. Refreshingly, he is the opposite of the proverbial bureaucratic planner: He is excited by his own work and believes that it can make the world a better place. And his tools offer cities the chance to rebuild themselves in unconventional, inexpensive ways by centering not on infrastructure or unproven technology, but rather on pricing signals and revision of outdated, inefficient regulations.
Cities that have no money for infrastructure investments, are crushed by byzantine planning codes, or are otherwise skittish about upsetting the status quo now have no excuse not to consider parking reform. What developers would not be happier to have their parking requirements cut in half? What merchant open in the daytime wouldn’t be thrilled to share parking with the dinner theater next door? What big box developer wouldn’t be perfectly content to cut down a few fewer trees -- if only the laws allowed them to?
Studies have shown that abstinence education has largely been a failure. The future for parking abstinence, is, however, far brighter. A city with less parking, less traffic, and more pleasant places to live, work, and stroll hand-in-hand would be sexier indeed.
As for what goes on in the backseat: you kids are on your own.
Josh Stephens is the author of "Putting Parking into Reverse," published in the winter 2009 issue of InTransition. He is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.
Anyone who has ever eaten the exhaust of a Lamborghini understands the visceral charms of driving. Its appeal lies similarly in the curves of the Big Sur Highway, the preening queues on the Sunset Strip, and the anticipatory thunder of a NASCAR starting line.
The notion of a “love affair with cars” has gone from metaphor to cliché to hardened myth in the course of the past century, and even the dowdiest of America’s engineers, transportation planners and public officials have been seduced into serving the auto’s every need. Meanwhile, parking, which is the obvious, and necessary, corollary to driving, gets only whispered about, like condoms at the back of a drug store. Indeed, the most shocking claim in Professor Don Shoup’s magnum opus The High Cost of Free Parking is not that cities have implemented bad policies -- that happens all the time for all sorts of reasons -- but that almost no one has bothered to study those policies.
As it turns out, every car on the road equates to roughly seven patches of asphalt off the road. Cars get stored at home, at work, at the grocery store, and all about town. They take up valuable real estate, and, even then, any given space is more likely to be empty than not, whether they come in the form of flat expanses of asphalt or towering monoliths of concrete. They amount to the greatest, most pointless failure in American planning and design. Were parking not an aesthetic crime, it would, at the very least, be a sin against efficiency.
Yes, call me biased. But to say that a transportation writer shouldn’t descry parking lots is like saying a crime reporter shouldn’t be opposed to murder.
For all the effort that planners exert to create regulations and, on occasion, envision better cities, their approach to parking has been based on specious assumptions and utter irrationality. Why measure peak annual parking rather than averages? Why give away desirable spaces for free? Who knows what an abattoir is, much less how many parking spaces it needs? Arbitrary minimum parking requirements have not only stretched cities out physically -- so that buildings are enshrouded by surface parking lots and therefore separated from each other -- but also stretched them financially. The costs that parking imposes are in the price of every bag of Cheetos at K-Mart, every minute stuck in suburban traffic, and, indirectly, in lost revenue to cities.
It’s tempting to think that in the postmodern world that we’ve outgrown paradigm shifts, but Professor Shoup has done his best to give us one. He calls for a dramatic reinterpretation of the ills and possibilities of parking, and he’s kind enough to prescribe some compelling solutions: higher street parking rates, communal lots, maximums instead of minimums, parking benefit districts, and the rest. The ball is now in the public officials’ court. My article is but the latest (though perhaps longest) in a series of articles dedicated to Shoup’s studies, so no planner or city engineer has any excuse not to consider his prescriptions.
Shoup himself has taken enthusiastically to the lecture circuit, translating dense, statistics-laden work into a call to action. Refreshingly, he is the opposite of the proverbial bureaucratic planner: He is excited by his own work and believes that it can make the world a better place. And his tools offer cities the chance to rebuild themselves in unconventional, inexpensive ways by centering not on infrastructure or unproven technology, but rather on pricing signals and revision of outdated, inefficient regulations.
Cities that have no money for infrastructure investments, are crushed by byzantine planning codes, or are otherwise skittish about upsetting the status quo now have no excuse not to consider parking reform. What developers would not be happier to have their parking requirements cut in half? What merchant open in the daytime wouldn’t be thrilled to share parking with the dinner theater next door? What big box developer wouldn’t be perfectly content to cut down a few fewer trees -- if only the laws allowed them to?
Studies have shown that abstinence education has largely been a failure. The future for parking abstinence, is, however, far brighter. A city with less parking, less traffic, and more pleasant places to live, work, and stroll hand-in-hand would be sexier indeed.
As for what goes on in the backseat: you kids are on your own.
Josh Stephens is the author of "Putting Parking into Reverse," published in the winter 2009 issue of InTransition. He is a freelance writer based in Los Angeles.
About “Reinventing the Wheel”
By Karl Vilacoba
First, I’d like to thank Professor Jerry Schneider for his assistance with this story. His Innovative Transportation Technologies website is a great resource, and I would encourage anyone reading this blog to browse it when you have some free time.
Over 100 transportation systems are being tracked on Schneider’s website, and boiling them down to a list of only a dozen or so to profile was not easy. To be clear, this was not meant as one of those “10 Most Important” or “10 Technologies You Must Know About” kinds of features. My goal was simply to introduce a sample of these inventions to a broad audience who probably never heard of any of them.
I wanted to show a variety of systems – a little bit of everything, from PRTs to alternative cars to freight movers to pedestrian innovations. Each capsule was meant as a brief overview with links to sites where readers can learn more. I don’t endorse any of these systems, nor do I offer any predictions about whether they’ll succeed in the marketplace.
I started off by perusing all of the systems on the website’s matrix and choosing about a dozen that grabbed my attention. I asked Professor Schneider to recommend some systems I should consider, and to look over my list and advise me of any potential red flags. Our lists had some overlap, and I eliminated a few that were too similar to others. While the odds are that many of these innovations will never see the light of day, I sometimes gave a little extra weight to those that seemed feasible – far along in the development stages, financially well-backed or under serious consideration by legitimate clients (countries, cities, big corporations, etc.), for instance.
Finally, one or two never panned out because the companies’ contact people weren’t responsive (check your e-mails!), but those cases were the exception to the rule. When I reached out for more information, it wasn’t unusual to be called back by the CEO or the inventor themselves. Often they were one and the same.
I believe that’s a good indicator of how competitive this field is. These companies don’t get much media attention, so when an opportunity came, they put their top people in touch and were very accommodating (although some of these companies consist of staffs you can count on one hand). It was one of several factors that made this one of the most enjoyable stories I’ve worked on over the past few years.
Anyone have any favorites of the systems I profiled? Any thoughts on whether these systems could work in your city?
First, I’d like to thank Professor Jerry Schneider for his assistance with this story. His Innovative Transportation Technologies website is a great resource, and I would encourage anyone reading this blog to browse it when you have some free time.
Over 100 transportation systems are being tracked on Schneider’s website, and boiling them down to a list of only a dozen or so to profile was not easy. To be clear, this was not meant as one of those “10 Most Important” or “10 Technologies You Must Know About” kinds of features. My goal was simply to introduce a sample of these inventions to a broad audience who probably never heard of any of them.
I wanted to show a variety of systems – a little bit of everything, from PRTs to alternative cars to freight movers to pedestrian innovations. Each capsule was meant as a brief overview with links to sites where readers can learn more. I don’t endorse any of these systems, nor do I offer any predictions about whether they’ll succeed in the marketplace.
I started off by perusing all of the systems on the website’s matrix and choosing about a dozen that grabbed my attention. I asked Professor Schneider to recommend some systems I should consider, and to look over my list and advise me of any potential red flags. Our lists had some overlap, and I eliminated a few that were too similar to others. While the odds are that many of these innovations will never see the light of day, I sometimes gave a little extra weight to those that seemed feasible – far along in the development stages, financially well-backed or under serious consideration by legitimate clients (countries, cities, big corporations, etc.), for instance.
Finally, one or two never panned out because the companies’ contact people weren’t responsive (check your e-mails!), but those cases were the exception to the rule. When I reached out for more information, it wasn’t unusual to be called back by the CEO or the inventor themselves. Often they were one and the same.
I believe that’s a good indicator of how competitive this field is. These companies don’t get much media attention, so when an opportunity came, they put their top people in touch and were very accommodating (although some of these companies consist of staffs you can count on one hand). It was one of several factors that made this one of the most enjoyable stories I’ve worked on over the past few years.
Anyone have any favorites of the systems I profiled? Any thoughts on whether these systems could work in your city?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Transit Benefit to Double
By Karl Vilacoba
Some great news for commuters seems to have been lost in the considerable fine print of the federal stimulus package. The law authorizes the IRS to raise the tax-free amount allowed by employer-sponsored commuter benefit programs from $120 to $230 per month, or $1,440 to $2,760 annually.
Under the new formula, set to take effect March 1, mass transit riders and vanpoolers can save nearly $800 per year in federal income taxes, and possibly more than $1,000 once state and Social Security taxes are factored in. Employees whose monthly mass transit fees are less than $230 will be allowed to deduct the full amount from their paychecks.
Over the last few years, the government raised the cap in intervals you could chalk up as “better than nothing.” The last three years saw three consecutive $5 hikes meant to adjust for inflation. In reality, the hikes often didn’t -- the surge in gas costs placed enormous pressure on transit providers to raise fares, in many cases well more than $5.
But by doubling the cap, the government has created a real incentive for commuters to leave their cars home. According to surveys by the nonprofit TransitCenter, one-third of employers who don’t currently offer the benefit said they would if the monthly cap were increased significantly, and 53 percent of employees said they would take advantage of the benefit if it were offered. Employers save money from these programs by lowering their payroll taxes.
Also significant, the law brings the pre-tax allowance in line with the $230 benefit provided for commuters who pay to park at or near their workplaces or at park-and-rides. Transit advocates objected to the previous $230 to $120 disparity, which they argued encouraged commuters to drive rather than ride the rails or bus.
“Given the economic pressures our riders are under, this relief couldn’t have come at a better time,” Steve Schlickman, executive director of the Chicago Regional Transportation Authority, said in a press release. “A thousand dollars a year can make a real difference in the life of a family. This is a victory for Chicago’s commuters.”
Some great news for commuters seems to have been lost in the considerable fine print of the federal stimulus package. The law authorizes the IRS to raise the tax-free amount allowed by employer-sponsored commuter benefit programs from $120 to $230 per month, or $1,440 to $2,760 annually.
Under the new formula, set to take effect March 1, mass transit riders and vanpoolers can save nearly $800 per year in federal income taxes, and possibly more than $1,000 once state and Social Security taxes are factored in. Employees whose monthly mass transit fees are less than $230 will be allowed to deduct the full amount from their paychecks.
Over the last few years, the government raised the cap in intervals you could chalk up as “better than nothing.” The last three years saw three consecutive $5 hikes meant to adjust for inflation. In reality, the hikes often didn’t -- the surge in gas costs placed enormous pressure on transit providers to raise fares, in many cases well more than $5.
But by doubling the cap, the government has created a real incentive for commuters to leave their cars home. According to surveys by the nonprofit TransitCenter, one-third of employers who don’t currently offer the benefit said they would if the monthly cap were increased significantly, and 53 percent of employees said they would take advantage of the benefit if it were offered. Employers save money from these programs by lowering their payroll taxes.
Also significant, the law brings the pre-tax allowance in line with the $230 benefit provided for commuters who pay to park at or near their workplaces or at park-and-rides. Transit advocates objected to the previous $230 to $120 disparity, which they argued encouraged commuters to drive rather than ride the rails or bus.
“Given the economic pressures our riders are under, this relief couldn’t have come at a better time,” Steve Schlickman, executive director of the Chicago Regional Transportation Authority, said in a press release. “A thousand dollars a year can make a real difference in the life of a family. This is a victory for Chicago’s commuters.”
Friday, January 9, 2009
Coming Soon ... Winter 2009 Issue
Happy New Year! Work is well underway on the winter issue of InTransition, which should be in the mail in late February/early March. If you’ve changed your address since the summer, be sure to update your contact information on our website or send us an e-mail letting us know what’s new.
Here’s a look at some of the top stories in our upcoming issue:
Putting Parking into Reverse: Four years after its release, cities are beginning to act on the recommendations of Donald Shoup’s influential book “The High Cost of Free Parking.”
The Economic Impacts of BRT: Often overlooked, bus rapid transit can serve as an engine of urban renewal and transit-oriented development.
Innovative Transportation: Inventors around the world have been hard at work on unconventional, gas-free modes of transportation.
Transportation & the Economic Meltdown: Victoria Transport Policy Institute Executive Director Todd Litman shares his views on the connections between the financial crisis and the transportation sector.
Green Pavements: Cities experiment with alternatives to standard pavement materials.
Please note, not all of the material in the printed edition will be available online. To sign up for a FREE subscription to InTransition, just fill out the simple form on our website.
Here’s a look at some of the top stories in our upcoming issue:
Putting Parking into Reverse: Four years after its release, cities are beginning to act on the recommendations of Donald Shoup’s influential book “The High Cost of Free Parking.”
The Economic Impacts of BRT: Often overlooked, bus rapid transit can serve as an engine of urban renewal and transit-oriented development.
Innovative Transportation: Inventors around the world have been hard at work on unconventional, gas-free modes of transportation.
Transportation & the Economic Meltdown: Victoria Transport Policy Institute Executive Director Todd Litman shares his views on the connections between the financial crisis and the transportation sector.
Green Pavements: Cities experiment with alternatives to standard pavement materials.
Please note, not all of the material in the printed edition will be available online. To sign up for a FREE subscription to InTransition, just fill out the simple form on our website.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Transportation Sector Bonded to Credit Crisis
By Karl Vilacoba
Jim Calpin is a successful public finance banker on Wall Street, but don’t ask him what’s next in this turbulent economic climate.
“We don’t know. The crystal ball at Merrill Lynch is broken,” Calpin told an audience of about 200 at “Beyond the Gas Tax: A Symposium on Funding Future Transportation Needs,” held Tuesday in Syracuse, N.Y. As he spoke, the Dow Jones was well on its way to a 508-point plunge for the day.
What Calpin can say for sure is that the credit crunch crisis is beginning to hamper transportation agencies’ ability to do business. If it continues, he said, it may cripple them.
Even agencies with AAA bond ratings are having trouble getting bond financing now, according to Calpin, who specializes in transportation infrastructure for Merrill Lynch. The funding they’ve been able to secure doesn’t stretch as far as it did a few months back. Calpin displayed a graph showing the dramatic rise in interest rates banks charge public agencies for bonds – the 5 or 6 percent charged in recent months is now closer to 9 or 10 percent in many cases. With their buying power sinking, agencies are going to have to do even less with their already tight budgets.
The indicators he’s seeing are not encouraging. Some of the financial sector’s largest bond insurers are going under fast. America’s financial fears are contagious and spreading globally. Not even tolling revenues are immune. In Orlando, collections are down about 15 percent, in part because unemployment is so bad, he said.
None of this is bound to make Congress’ job any easier drafting the next transportation funding bill.
“Something’s got to give,” Calpin said. “We’ve got to get a new playbook in Washington when we look at [SAFETEA-LU] re-authorization.”
Jim Calpin is a successful public finance banker on Wall Street, but don’t ask him what’s next in this turbulent economic climate.
“We don’t know. The crystal ball at Merrill Lynch is broken,” Calpin told an audience of about 200 at “Beyond the Gas Tax: A Symposium on Funding Future Transportation Needs,” held Tuesday in Syracuse, N.Y. As he spoke, the Dow Jones was well on its way to a 508-point plunge for the day.
What Calpin can say for sure is that the credit crunch crisis is beginning to hamper transportation agencies’ ability to do business. If it continues, he said, it may cripple them.
Even agencies with AAA bond ratings are having trouble getting bond financing now, according to Calpin, who specializes in transportation infrastructure for Merrill Lynch. The funding they’ve been able to secure doesn’t stretch as far as it did a few months back. Calpin displayed a graph showing the dramatic rise in interest rates banks charge public agencies for bonds – the 5 or 6 percent charged in recent months is now closer to 9 or 10 percent in many cases. With their buying power sinking, agencies are going to have to do even less with their already tight budgets.
The indicators he’s seeing are not encouraging. Some of the financial sector’s largest bond insurers are going under fast. America’s financial fears are contagious and spreading globally. Not even tolling revenues are immune. In Orlando, collections are down about 15 percent, in part because unemployment is so bad, he said.
None of this is bound to make Congress’ job any easier drafting the next transportation funding bill.
“Something’s got to give,” Calpin said. “We’ve got to get a new playbook in Washington when we look at [SAFETEA-LU] re-authorization.”
Monday, October 6, 2008
Don't Vote and Drive
By Karl Vilacoba
Your odds of getting killed driving to the polls on Election Day are higher than New Year’s Eve or Super Bowl Sunday.
A new study of U.S. presidential election days from Jimmy Carter in 1976 to George W. Bush in 2004 found an across the board rise in fatal crashes during polling hours. The researchers compared the same hours on the Tuesdays immediately before and after the election days and found fatality rates were 18 percent higher.
Donald Redelmeier, a researcher form Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada, and Stanford University statistician Robert Tibshirani hypothesized that the combination of the country’s reliance on auto travel and the mobilization of about 55 percent of the population to vote might lead to a rise in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Their investigation concluded that presidential election days averaged 24 fatalities and 800 serious injuries more than normal. The risk was reportedly bi-partisan, as crashes spiked regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was elected.
The study mentioned speed, distance, distraction, emotions, confusion over how to get to the polling station and unfit drivers taking to the roads as possible explanations. In a video interview on Sunnybrook’s website, Redelmeier also said rushing could play a part. “I think it’s more of a reflection of speeding to the polls, or away from the polls, or trying to jam one more thing into an already busy day,” said Redelmeier, also a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.
The researchers suggest that election organizers stress the importance of safety when encouraging people to get out and vote. Other interventions worth considering might include subsidized public transportation, setting up polling places within walking distances, remote voting or stronger traffic enforcement on election days.
The full study was published in the Oct. 1 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Your odds of getting killed driving to the polls on Election Day are higher than New Year’s Eve or Super Bowl Sunday.
A new study of U.S. presidential election days from Jimmy Carter in 1976 to George W. Bush in 2004 found an across the board rise in fatal crashes during polling hours. The researchers compared the same hours on the Tuesdays immediately before and after the election days and found fatality rates were 18 percent higher.
Donald Redelmeier, a researcher form Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada, and Stanford University statistician Robert Tibshirani hypothesized that the combination of the country’s reliance on auto travel and the mobilization of about 55 percent of the population to vote might lead to a rise in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Their investigation concluded that presidential election days averaged 24 fatalities and 800 serious injuries more than normal. The risk was reportedly bi-partisan, as crashes spiked regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was elected.
The study mentioned speed, distance, distraction, emotions, confusion over how to get to the polling station and unfit drivers taking to the roads as possible explanations. In a video interview on Sunnybrook’s website, Redelmeier also said rushing could play a part. “I think it’s more of a reflection of speeding to the polls, or away from the polls, or trying to jam one more thing into an already busy day,” said Redelmeier, also a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.
The researchers suggest that election organizers stress the importance of safety when encouraging people to get out and vote. Other interventions worth considering might include subsidized public transportation, setting up polling places within walking distances, remote voting or stronger traffic enforcement on election days.
The full study was published in the Oct. 1 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Friday, September 26, 2008
HOV Lanes for Dummies
By Karl Vilacoba
Suffolk County (N.Y.) Sheriff’s Deputy Robert Howard saw right through this scheme.
According to CBS News, the officer was patrolling the Long Island Expressway Wednesday when he noticed an animated conversation going on between a driver in the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and his perfectly still passenger. Howard pulled up for a closer look, and what he saw was enough to turn on the flashing lights.
“I asked him for license and registration and he said, ‘Officer is there something wrong?’ And I said, ‘Yes, in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, in the HOV lane, you are required to have two living passengers -- living!”
Police allege a 51-year-old Long Island man dressed up a transparent Plexiglas mannequin with shades, a jacket and baseball cap in an attempt to beat the traffic. New York law requires that vehicles must have two or more occupants to use these carpool lanes.
According to the report, the driver allegedly asked, “Can’t you give me an ‘E’ for effort?” The deputy said he responded, “No, I’m giving you an ‘S’ for summons.” The violation reportedly costs $90 and carries three points.
This isn’t the first scheme someone’s concocted to experience life in the fast lane by themselves. An Atlanta man was caught using the dummy trick in 2001, but in addition to dressing his passenger up, this one was holding a clever prop – an unfolded newspaper. In 2002, a Washington State woman was ticketed for riding with a dummy after reportedly cutting off a school bus and causing a pileup that sent about 20 people to the hospital. And a pregnant Arizona woman pulled over in 2005 for riding alone in the HOV lane contended that her fetus should count as a passenger. The court rejected her claim, contending the standard for riding in HOV lanes was how many seats were occupied.
In a way, all of this speaks well for HOV lanes. The fact that people are willing to go to such lengths to use them would seem to show their success and strong appeal to our highway system’s motorists and their passengers, living, dead or unborn.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Subway Extension Would Make More than a Token Difference for L.A.
By Josh StephensCovering what could be the largest infrastructure investment in one’s hometown is naturally a challenge in journalistic objectivity. On the one hand, it would have been difficult for a writer not from Los Angeles to comprehend three decades of background information as well as the present-day complexities of funding, traffic, land use patterns and political wrangling at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. On the other hand, one of the proposed portals would be a half-mile from my front door.
Metro serves 88 constituent cities – of which Los Angeles is only one – totaling 10 million people. The Westside, which is the object of the proposed subway – is, in turn, only one part of Los Angeles. But by some measures, it is the largest informal urban region in the country, on par with the New York boroughs and all but the country’s very largest center cities. I describe it as an amorphous Manhattan, a dynamic area of wealth, global prominence and traffic. But it’s even more complicated than that, because Los Angeles city government does not correspond with the transportation authority, and, moreover, the proposed subway would pass through three other entirely independent cities: West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica.
If I’m guilty of anything, it’s hometown pride, except without the real town. The subway might change that. It might finally knit together the Westside’s parts while, at the same time, introducing perhaps the most profound symbol of serious urbanism that policy and engineering has ever devised (even more so than skyscrapers, and certainly more so than freeways -- which are, many would agree, downright anti-urban).
I could wax poetic about either subways or the Westside ad nauseam, but the poetry is beside the point. What matters for my contribution to InTransition are, one the one hand, things like accuracy, balance and objectivity, and, on the other hand, expertise and familiarity. It’s hard to fulfill both.
I readily admit that if the subway gets built to the Westside, I will be first in line at the turnstile (assuming that Metro goes forward with an asinine plan to abandon its current honor system). Even my Libertarian anti-subway sources admitted that the extension would be “nice.” For me, it would be more than nice; it would be a revelation.
But, as one of the three largest public transit projects in the country, it would also cost $5 billion. And let’s be real. If ever it gets approved, it would be more like $10 billion or $12 billion. Who knows.
The fun thing about pursuing objectivity in the face of one’s own interests is that you learn a lot. Some of my sources who were most skeptical about the subway were the most eloquent and indeed most cogent. The cost-benefit analysis results in some pretty daunting calculations, mainly because Los Angeles’ entire subway system will always pale in comparison to single lines in New York. One source even noted that historically, the construction of rail projects in L.A. County has correlated with a decrease in overall transit ridership. Aw, snap.
But that doesn’t mean that Metro should not pursue it and that the federal government should not fund it. Whenever my mind wanders into the billions, I think about all the money that is wasted on things that aren’t very nice: inefficiency, misguided subsidies, and, of course, wars. A subway will last generations, and it will not kill anyone. In fact, it might even save a few lives through less pollution and fewer chances for unfortunate meetings between vehicle and pedestrian on the pavement up above.
And as gas ratchets towards $5 and beyond with hardly any chance of ever coming down, the Los Angeles subway – as “nice” as it might be for me and my fellow Westsiders right now – may become every bit as essential for us as our cars once were.
Ultimately the Federal Transportation Administration’s New Starts program will decide whether the subway extension deserves federal funds. And, failing that, Congress may work its magic. In the meantime, we in Los Angeles have to decide whether a little pride and a little less traffic is going to be worth it. Worth $5 billion, that is.
Josh Stephens is the author of “An Underground Movement Forms in L.A.,” published in the Summer 2008 issue of InTransition.
Arena Gives Crowds New Look at Newark
By Karl VilacobaGrowing up on the Jersey Shore, I often had to choose between the Meadowlands and Madison Square Garden when it came to spending my entertainment dollars. The choice usually boiled down to this question: the highway or the railway?
Whether it was a concert tour or a pro-wrestling card, the venues sometimes hosted the same events days apart. I could make the car trip up the New Jersey Turnpike to the Meadowlands sports complex (home to Giants Stadium and the Izod Center) or hop on a train to Penn Station New York, which is basically the Garden’s basement. Although it was a good half-hour longer, MSG usually won out. The train eliminated the stress of driving as well as the pesky tack-on prices for tolls, parking and gas. But with Newark’s Prudential Center now up and running, I’ll probably be seeing less of MSG in the future.
Pulling out of Penn Station Newark one night, I glanced out the train window at the 4,800-square-foot TV screen on the arena’s exterior and it dawned on me how important transportation is to a venue’s success. Out of this commuter’s daydream was born the idea for this issue’s look at sports arenas and transportation. I learned a lot from reading and writing the various articles in this series, and I hope you did, too.
One of the most thought-provoking of the bunch was a sidebar I worked on called “Academics Say Stadiums Don’t Pay.” The piece features an interview with Professor Rick Eckstein, author of a book that challenges the notion of the sports arena as a catalyst for economic revitalization. Eckstein said that of the dozens of publicly financed stadium projects he’s studied, not one has lived up to its financial promises. When you crunch all of the relevant numbers -- jobs created, tax ratables, sales revenues, etc. -- it never justifies the public investment, he said. And when confronted by these facts, he said, people will defend the stadiums with lame arguments along the lines of community pride.
Which brings me back to Newark. At the expense of sounding just like the suckers Professor Eckstein warned me about, I still think the city’s decision to invest in the Prudential Center was a no-brainer.
Before I started working here, I flat out feared Newark. Notice I said “before.” Because once I spent some time downtown, I felt as safe there as Manhattan. This area today has plenty of great things going for it – the trick is getting people here to see for themselves. That’s exactly what the Prudential Center has been doing, thousands of people a night.
Former Mayor Sharpe James relentlessly pursued a downtown arena a few years ago, casting total faith in the idea that it would be the great economic cornerstone for the city’s future. He offered team owners the heavens to relocate to a blighted patch of properties a few blocks from Newark Penn Station. Just when it seemed like the plan had flatlined, James sealed the deal by pledging $210 million toward its construction. He took some lumps for the move, and rightfully so. After all, the city has no shortage of pressing needs that money could have been spent on.
Let’s say Newark earns back just half of that money through arena-related tax revenues. Can the rest of what it gains really be quantified? In the years since the 1967 riots, attracting tourists has been a huge challenge and good national publicity has been scarce. If you asked me two years ago what the first word to come to mind would be when you said “Newark,” I’d have responded with something like “crime.” Standing around the streets before a recent Devils game, I couldn’t help but wonder how many of those fans would have said the same.
But not after they left. Now the first word they think of might be “Devils,” “hockey,” “arena” or “fun.” If they’ve looked around a little, it could even be something like “museums,” “restaurants” or “universities.” That sure beats “crime.” How much is a change like that worth?
Karl Vilacoba is the author of “The Devils in the Details,” published in the Summer 2008 issue of InTransition. He is the magazine’s managing editor.
When Moving Huge Crowds, a Few Thousand Cars Makes a Big Difference
By Jason MartinMy second trip out to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway this summer was quite different from the first. I was back at the track on Sunday, July 27, for the NASCAR Allstate 400, and getting in and out was not nearly the traffic nightmare that I and many others encountered for the Indianapolis 500 back on Memorial Day weekend.
I left my house on the north side of town, about a 10-mile drive, at the same time for both races – four hours in advance of the race start. In May, the trip in was a brutal crawl once I passed the White River on 30th Street and approached Cold Spring Road. We were bumper to bumper for more than an hour, and this is one of the more secretive passages into the track.
Fast-forward to the NASCAR race, attended by another enormous crowd of about 225,000 people, but significantly less than the 300,000-plus that showed up for the 500. For the NASCAR race, I zipped along 30th Street all the way to the light at Georgetown Road by the edge of the track in less than 20 minutes total. I had to wait on police to shuttle pedestrians, and had to merge in front of a tractor trailer, but turning left there was little problem.
Getting out of the track was also less harried this time around. Media parking is inside the lot, and for the Indy 500, it was more than an hour trip home after waiting more than an hour for the race to end. For the NASCAR race, I waited only a half-hour, and it took only 20 minutes to get home.
I use this comparison as a means of demonstrating the effect that public transportation might have on traffic congestion at these races. Seventy-five thousand less people attended, but it made a world of difference in congestion. About 50,000 people take the public shuttles to the Indy 500. Without those shuttles, how much more of a headache would it? With more shuttles, how much easier?
It’s very likely that the shuttles will return next year after IndyGo follows the proper Federal Transit Administration procedures, but this is an example where the government might consider amending its rules to suit certain population centers. The Indianapolis area needs all the public transportation help it can get – it’s the 13th-most populated city in America and I can’t imagine there’s a worse one in the top 20 for moving the public.
A new airport opening in the fall comes with plans to add light rail connecting the terminal and downtown. For a city that thrives on conventions, that’s essential.
Here’s hoping that in regards to public transportation and the track, the city keeps its current service or even increases it instead of taking a drastic step back.
Jason Martin is the author of “A Slow-Go to the Speedway,” published in the Summer 2008 issue of InTransition.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Despite Spike in Paying Riders, Transit Providers Struggle
By Karl VilacobaWe’ve all seen the reports – public transit ridership is up significantly nationwide. So how are transit agencies responding to this good news? Cutting service.
The Associated Press reported this week that many bus and train service providers are being forced to cut underperforming routes in order to cope with high diesel and gasoline costs. You’d think the rise in paying riders would offset the fuel expenses, but as the story notes, it’s not that simple. One of the reasons is that sales tax revenues that help subsidize these services are flagging, also because of the fuel prices. People just don’t have expendable income these days because they’re giving it all to the gas stations.
The Denver-area’s Regional Transportation District (RTD), which we profiled in our winter issue, was among those forced to trim services, despite record passenger numbers.
“Everything that we do is being undermined by the fuel crisis,” RTD CEO Clarence Marsella said. “It’s really diabolical. The tentacles are everywhere.”
If there’s a bright side to this fuel crisis, it’s that it’s causing Joe Public to take part in serious conversations he wouldn’t have bothered with before. Topics like alternative energies, transportation funding, the nation’s infrastructure and climate change are getting play on the news shows every night now, in part because the people have pushed them into the presidential campaign dialogue. People are realizing, albeit slowly, that the old way of doing things can not be continued forever. The importance of transit as an alternative to single occupancy vehicle trips is a big part of these discussions.
We may soon find out how committed people are to their new commuting habits. Gasoline prices typically peak in the summer, when demand is highest, and drop in the fall. Lately we’ve seen prices slide a little bit due to market forces. If gas plummets back to around $3 per gallon or the high $2s, will the ridership gains be maintained, or will people get back behind the wheel, as if it were all just a bad dream?
If not, transit agencies will have a new base of paying customers with less overhead to pay. We’ll also know the bus and train trips they’ve been making were about more than just sticker shock.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Long-Range Planning Symposium Multimedia Files Available Online
By Karl VilacobaIn "the snap of a finger,” energy costs have dramatically changed long-range planning goals and demographic expectations, according to Anne Canby, president of the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership and a member of InTransition’s editorial board.
Canby was among a half-dozen panelists at a June 26 symposium held as part of the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority’s (NJTPA) effort to update its 25-year regional plan. (The NJTPA publishes InTransition in partnership with the New Jersey Institute of Technology.) Canby said the rising cost of energy means that people will decide where to live and work based on the combined cost of housing and transportation, rather than simply assuming transportation will be affordable, as in the past.
“Energy is clearly a front and center issue and has to be incorporated into anything we do with transportation from here on out,” she said.
While a few of the experts addressed specific local issues, others delivered presentations that were highly relevant to anyone in the planning and transportation fields, if not any resident of the country.
One of the most compelling speakers of the day was Daniel Lerch, author of the first major municipal guidebook on peak oil and global warming and a program manager at the Post Carbon Institute, which advises government officials how to end their reliance on fossil fuels. Lerch gave a thought-provoking presentation on how much trouble the country is in with its foreign oil dependence. The gas prices we’re seeing are just the beginning, he warned, and the time is now (if not yesterday) for America to fundamentally change its consumption patterns.
Public policy expert and Northeastern University (Boston) Professor Joseph Giglio advocated that the government widely reform how our transportation network is funded and administered. He discussed a number of interesting alternative funding strategies that have been tried or are under consideration around the country.
Audio files of the speakers are available online here. In some cases, Powerpoint files corresponding with the presentations were posted.
Coming Soon ... Summer 2008 Issue
InTransition is now putting the finishing touches on its summer issue, which should be in mailboxes over the next few weeks. The issue will feature a group of stories examining the planning, obstacles and investments involved with providing transportation for sports arenas. Among the places we’ll visit are the Prudential Center in Newark, Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the new Dallas Cowboys stadium under construction in Arlington.
Also in the next issue:
- The debate over whether or not Los Angeles should build a Westside extension to its subway system
- A look at some of the archaeological technologies are being successfully used to assist with transportation projects
- The second in a three-part series of excerpts from Pulitzer Prize-winning author John McPhee’s “Uncommon Carriers”
Not all of the content that appears in the print edition will be available online. To order a FREE subscription to the magazine, visit InTransition's website and complete the simple form.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
One Man's Dream Is Another's Nightmare
A CNN.com article headlined, “Is America’s suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?” has proven to be pretty provocative, judging by the volume and tone of comments posted in response.
The author proposes that in the not too far off future, market forces like the mortgage crisis, gas prices and a housing surplus will change homebuying tastes so drastically that the idyllic suburban McMansion may become the new American slum.
According to the article, demand will rise so sharply for walkable, transit-accessible housing in urban areas that the poor could be priced out of today’s ghettos and forced to move to the outlying suburbs. The writer conjures up visions of abandoned cul-de-sac neighborhoods swamped with for sale signs and overgrown grass. These large homes will be split into multi-family dwellings, and neighborhoods will be in danger of street gang infiltration.
Perhaps more fascinating than the glum future outlined in this article was the feedback it generated. I’ve read theories along these lines before on websites geared toward hardcore planners, but not on CNN, one of the most widely trafficked mainstream news sites in the world.
The interactive comments section became an entertaining battleground between those who view the New Urbanist movement with an almost religious seriousness and suburbanites and country folk who view the word “urban” as code for crime, pollution and a hostile way of life. At last check, there were hundreds of comments posted, apparently so many that they shut down the interactive feature.
The author proposes that in the not too far off future, market forces like the mortgage crisis, gas prices and a housing surplus will change homebuying tastes so drastically that the idyllic suburban McMansion may become the new American slum.
According to the article, demand will rise so sharply for walkable, transit-accessible housing in urban areas that the poor could be priced out of today’s ghettos and forced to move to the outlying suburbs. The writer conjures up visions of abandoned cul-de-sac neighborhoods swamped with for sale signs and overgrown grass. These large homes will be split into multi-family dwellings, and neighborhoods will be in danger of street gang infiltration.
Perhaps more fascinating than the glum future outlined in this article was the feedback it generated. I’ve read theories along these lines before on websites geared toward hardcore planners, but not on CNN, one of the most widely trafficked mainstream news sites in the world.
The interactive comments section became an entertaining battleground between those who view the New Urbanist movement with an almost religious seriousness and suburbanites and country folk who view the word “urban” as code for crime, pollution and a hostile way of life. At last check, there were hundreds of comments posted, apparently so many that they shut down the interactive feature.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Book 'Em, BART
By Karl VilacobaWhat a novel idea!
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has teamed up with a local library to set up a book-lending machine at its Pittsburg/Bay Point Station. According to BART, they are the first transit system in the nation to offer such a service.
Riders can choose from 400 fiction or nonfiction books for free by inserting a valid Contra Costa County library card in the machine. They can borrow up to three books at a time, as long as they return them to the machine within three weeks. The public will have access to the machine during BART’s normal hours of operation.
The county public library plans to install three other machines at a transit village at a BART station in Pleasant Hill, a site in Byron/Discovery Bay and another location that has not yet been determined.
It is also unclear whether standard library silence rules will now apply to the station.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Connecting the DOT with the Public
By Karl VilacobaU.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters is living life in the “Fast Lane,” or at least as far as presidential cabinet members go. On April 29, Peters announced the launch of a new blog of that name, a move that remains a relative rarity for public officials.
By all indications, it’s a hit. An entry she posted a few days ago about the gas tax holiday debate generated enough comments for her to write a follow-up entry responding to some of them. There have also been surprise guest entries written by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine about transportation issues in their regions, and there promises to be more. On Tuesday, Peters claimed to have had an impressive 31,000 hits in her first week.
What gives the Fast Lane a chance to catch on is Peters’ lack of fear to put her opinion out there. That quality caught my attention a few weeks back when she issued a statement expressing strong disappointment when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, which was quite a hot-button issue, died in the state’s Legislature. The gas tax has also become a major political debate between all three of the major candidates in this presidential race.
Describing her reasons for starting the blog, Peters said, “Fast Lane will allow me and others here at the department to speak directly with interested citizens, members of the transportation community and the blogosphere to engage in an earnest conversation about our nation’s transportation future. I have made 21st century solutions a priority for our transportation system, and now I’m thrilled to be using a 21st century communications tool to reach Americans in a whole new way.”
For a public official, the blog is a medium that carries great risks and rewards. On the plus side, it allows her the opportunity to communicate directly to the public, rather than having her full views boiled down to a three-sentence newspaper quote or five-second TV soundbite. It also gives her the chance to read honest feedback from members of the public who would otherwise never have access to her.
However, that could also become a problem. In my experience, Internet message boards are overwhelmingly negative places. People talk awfully tough when they can hide behind phony names and anonymity. It seems like when I read online papers with feedback enabled, the nasty comments always outnumber the positives, even when it’s doubtful that ratio reflects the public’s true opinion. For now, Peters’ blog has a moderation feature that ensures someone reviews and approves each comment before it goes live.
You’ve got to be willing to run those comments as long as they’re reasonable. If not, a blog can quickly become known as a joke, and the chances are that post will wind up somewhere else, only now it will carry the added complaint that they were “censored for writing the truth.” This negativity can take on a life of its own when a blog develops regulars and cliques start to form on the site.
So far, the blog seems to be handling it well. Peters’ gas tax opinion drew plenty of disagreement, but in many cases, the comments were very well reasoned and quite detailed.
In the months ahead, the Fast Lane could become a newsworthy website. It may even serve as a prototype for officials considering starting blogs of their own.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Do Roadway Guidance Tools Encourage Speeding?
The January-February TR News has an interesting piece about research which suggests some of the most common devices used to lower crash rates may actually accomplish the opposite. Alison Smiley, a Canadian human factors specialist, compiled several studies on improving roadway visibility and guidance and found that these measures often lead to increased speeds and crashes.Smiley attributed the findings to the phenomenon of “driver adaptation” -- if driving tasks are made easier, the driver will change their behavior. While post-mounted delineators and raised pavement markers improve the level of information available to drivers at night, that information also gives them the confidence to drive faster and leads to more crashes, she said.
Guidance improvements that aren’t visible do not embolden drivers to speed and were therefore suggested as more effective. Rumble strips, which give an audible warning and rattle the vehicle, were mentioned as an effective means to help distracted or fatigued drivers. Statistics show rumble strips placed on the road shoulder reduce run-off-road crashes by 21 percent, and those along the centerline reduce frontal-impact crashes by 25 percent.
According to Smiley, the Dutch believe setting up less guidance on busy neighborhood streets is best because it makes drivers uncertain about the proper right-of-way delineations, causing them to slow down. A similar school of thought involves the roundabout, which entails a heavier workload for drivers. The intimidation factor of navigating roundabouts encourages drivers to slow down and observe all of their surroundings, according to Smiley. When roundabouts replace signalized intersections, she said crashes have been shown to drop by one-third.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)