07.08.08
Posted in Advocacy
by Margherita at 7:06 am
2. TRANSPORTATION: Land-use planning more powerful tool
Debra Kahn, ClimateWire reporter
SAN FRANCISCO — California’s global warming plan is the first in the country to attempt to include land-use planning in estimating possible future emissions reductions. Transportation experts are saying the state could go even further in pursuit of emissions cuts from that method today, although the bulk of emissions cuts stemming from land use will come in future decades.
California’s plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020, released in draft form late last month, contains a variety of measures that address emissions from most sectors of the economy for a total of 169 million metric tons of reductions by 2020. For the transportation sector, the biggest contributor to emissions, the draft plan estimates that the majority of cuts — nearly 80 percent — will come from more stringent fuel economy standards for vehicles and a low-carbon fuel standard for refiners.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
07.03.08
Posted in Advocacy
by Margherita at 9:35 am
TRANSPORTATION: Bicyclists gear up for gas-free Fourth of July (07/03/2008)
Robin Bravender, ClimateWire reporter
While soaring gas prices have stopped some motorists from making Independence Day forays, others are venturing out for road trips that don’t involve expensive stops at the petroleum pump.
Bicycle enthusiast Rebecca Jensen, 23, is planning to spend the day on a bike trip with her parents, “winery hopping” around Walla Walla, Wash., in the southeast corner of the state.
Jensen doesn’t own a car and travels almost everywhere on her bicycle. She commutes to her job at a coffee shop on her bicycle and started a program at a community center teaching others how to fix their own bikes. She said since gas prices have increased, she has seen more bikes and “definitely more two-wheeled vehicles in general” out on the road with her.
“When I’m with people and they complain about gas, I do smile to myself, because I don’t have to directly pay for it,” Jensen said.
In a country famous for its love of cars, lifestyles like Jensen’s are still far from the norm. Yet with gas soaring above $4 per gallon, industry leaders say a growing number of summer travelers are eyeing bike trips with new appreciation.
For the first time this decade, AAA predicts a decline in the number of U.S. travelers over the July Fourth holiday. About 400,000 fewer people are expected to drive this holiday weekend, a 1.2 percent drop from 2007. It’s the second consecutive travel holiday this year, following Memorial Day, when AAA has forecast a decline.
And the drop-off might be even steeper than the organization has predicted.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
07.02.08
Posted in Advocacy
by Mark Dieterich at 3:28 pm
According to this article, Consumer Reports recently conducted a survey related to the effects of increasing gas prices. Naturally, the majority of the article focused on the affects of gas prices on automotive transportation, but I found these two statements the most interesting:
In 2007, Consumer Reports found the “tipping point,” at which motorists said they would drastically reduce driving, to be $3.50 per gallon of gasoline. According to the Department of Transportation, Americans have driven 20 billion fewer miles this year compared to the same time period in 2007.
Compared with last year, more people walked or bicycled (31 percent) this year, carpooled (24 percent), worked from home (18 percent), used more public transportation (16 percent), and even moved closer to work (10 percent).
I find these numbers very encouraging, especially the percentage increases of those who walked, biked, or carpooled to work over the same period in 2007. Unfortunately, the majority of the focus continues to be on how to lower the price of oil. The higher prices of oil have certainly had an impact one everyone, but I would argue it’s a sign of times to come. While we can scramble around and try to negotiate lower prices for oil, open up new places to drill for oil, how much time will that really buy us and at what cost? I feel the writing is on the wall, perhaps not today or tomorrow, but certainly in my lifetime, we need to drastically change our country’s energy policies. Yes, this most likely means a change in lifestyle for many Americans, but is this a bad thing?
I can honestly say that I enjoy my daily commute. If I were to go into a room full of people who commute in a single passenger vehicle and asked “Raise your hand if you enjoyed your commute to or from work today”, I think I’d be hard pressed to find a room where many people raised their hands. I think it would be good for our fast paced society to slow down at times, look at the World around you, and add just a little more pleasure to your life. I sincerely hope that 31% more of the people who were interviewed for this survey are doing just that and telling others about their experience.
Permalink
07.01.08
Posted in Advocacy, Alerts
by Mark Dieterich at 11:44 am
Construction has begun on the Henderson Bridge. Bicycles will be prohibited from riding in the travel lane (road) whenever the lane is less than 15′ wide. During these restrictions, RIDOT will have signs posted directing cyclists towards an appropriate detour, requiring cyclists to ride over one of the pedestrian walkways. You can read all about the status of the project and latest updates over at the Bike-to-Brown website.
Permalink
06.30.08
Posted in Advocacy, Alerts
by Margherita at 10:23 am
Comments on behalf of the Providence Bicycle Coalition (PBC): Long-Range Plan and TIP
Overall comments
- We commend the program for its honesty in identifying and presenting scenarios for outcomes based on current spending and priorities. This greater transparency is needed to understand the costs of different choices and help the public indicate where we want to make tradeoffs among them. That being said, however, the truth is that the plan remains a listing of disconnected projects, isolated within program stovepipes. It does not provide a coherent and holistic map of the state’s transportation system and alternatives, nor does it include in the cost/benefit discussions the costs avoided by greater reliance on alternative transportation modes or incorporate the currently external costs of pollution, human health impacts, and the physical destruction or degradation of our cities and landscapes. According to its own analysis, more than 60 percent of goals and measures in the last long-range plan were either not met, were considered inadequate to demonstrate progress, or were unsupported by data. Yet most of these measures are retained in the proposed new plan. For one egregious example: the plan states a goal of reducing serious bicycle injuries from 80 in 2001 to 75 in 2015, 71 in 2025, and 69 in 2030 — taking 30 YEARS to achieve a reduction of 11 injuries!! Clearly this says something about the need to rethink how we measure a successful system and suggests we should massively re-orient the plan from an inventory of programs to a set of key strategic outcomes. If more bikelanes and signage were installed in urban areas they would accomplish multiple outcomes — not only providing more support for cycling as an alternative mode, but also reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality; reduced wear and tear on existing roadway infrastructure, including bridges; less negative impact on neighborhoods and more opportunities for local travel; and reduced need for parking.
- Despite its stated goal to the contrary, and despite the public priorities identified in its own survey, the plan still focuses on moving cars, not people and goods. Bicycles, walking, ferries, and transit are given very little attention and fewer dollars. As summarized in Appendix B, the survey showed the public’s top three priorities were 1) commuter rail and sidewalks (tied); 2) bus, trolley, and special needs services; and 3) bike paths and lanes. Moreover, the top incentives for greater transit use were more frequency, availability of commuter rail from outlying areas, and reduced need to transfer (i.e., more one-seat destinations). Yet the overwhelming majority of the funding is allocated to highways and roads. Even within highways, there is no specific focus on the 1.2 percent of roads where 35 percent of the congestion occurs. We recognize that safety, particularly of failing bridges and other essential infrastructure, prevents immediate overhaul of budget priorities. Nevertheless, SAFETEALU does allow re-shuffling of funds; at least 60 percent of each core highway dollar can be used for any project eligible under the law. We ask that DOT and state planning listen to the public’s stated wishes and begin considering how to more effectively combine programs to achieve outcomes that are more than the sum of pots of money.
- We are in this dire situation because of the failure to adequately fund maintenance and even more because of the lack of a vision for what a successful 21st century system could be. What is lacking is boldness and an appreciation that this moment of skyrocketing gas prices and economic downturn is also a moment for change. If we cannot take advantage of this moment now, when the public is fed up and ready to support leaders with ideas, when will we? By the plan’s own analysis, every program is in the “sink” category. Transportation systems and their impacts arguably have more direct and indirect impact on our environment, economy, and quality of life than any other investment we can make. We can choose to operate more strategically — looking at desired outcomes, not programs — recognizing that promoting less vehicle use has the immediate advantage of increasing the life of existing infrastructure while also providing breathing space to shift to other modes, reduces the pollutants responsible for health and environmental impacts, improves overall safety, and begins to offer true choice to citizens. Rhode Island is small and dense enough to build a truly integrated system. It’s beautiful enough for us to care to make that happen — if not for us, then at least for our children.
TIP
- The bicycle program, with the exception of earmarks, will essentially disappear between 2008 and 2011 — this despite the fact that rising gasoline prices and other contributing factors are encouraging more and more commuters to take up cycling as a preferred transportation alternative. Moreover, even the earmarks are heavily oriented to suburban and recreational trails rather than ensuring safety of cyclists on city streets.
- The TIP’s insistence on looking at mass transit as the mode targeted at EJ and ADA communities only perpetuates its stereotype as the alternative of last resort. A system that works for these communities will work for everybody! SPO, RIPTA, and DOT should improve the system to accommodate all users in order to engender widespread public support.
- See comments above regarding lack of consideration for cycling/walking as viable and necessary transportation alternative. For example, the ~$50 million repair and rehab of the Henderson bridge should be re-evaluated. Is this highway to nowhere necessary? Does the bridge need to be configured exactly as it is at present? Current design does not even improve bicycle access.
- Also see comments above regarding disconnect among programs. The example of the I-195 realignment is telling. India Street along the waterfront will have been torn up and re-paved at least 3 TIMES during this process — for the highway construction itself, for the burial of the power lines, and for the construction of the Narragansett Bay Commission CSO interceptor and outfall. How can this happen? Surely the TIP should be the way these infrastructure activities can be coordinated.
- As PBC requested in the TIP discussion last fall, we request that every road project going forward include bicycle and/or pedestrian accommodation. This is the only way to begin shifting the priority from moving cars to moving people. In the interim, we want more signage, more bicycle racks, and more education of drivers and police about the rights and responsibilities of cyclists on the roads.
Permalink
06.25.08
Posted in Advocacy, Events
by Mark Dieterich at 9:12 am
| June 26, 2008 |
| 1:00 pm | to | 2:00 pm |
| 6:30 pm | to | 7:30 pm |
From Barry Schiller off the advocacy list:
Reminder that on Thursday, June 26 at 1pm and at 6:30pm in Room 300 of DEM (off Promenade St just west of I-95 in Providence) there are public hearings on both the 4-year Transporation Impriovement program (TIP) and the long-term Transportation 2030 plan. I hope some wil speak for both the bike paths and for on-road bicycling.
My take on the draft is that it puts most of the bike program (except for Congressional earmarks that cannot be used for anything else) on hold. Thus finishing the Blackstone, and bike paths/routes in Tiverton, Cranston, Jamestown, North Smithfield, Charlestown, Warwick and East Greenwich are all put off for the indefinite future after 2012. Once the earmarks are finished and Providence finally does the share-the-road signing and some striping, there will be no (Federally supported) bike program scheduled.
Permalink
06.20.08
Posted in Advocacy
by Eric at 7:53 pm
As gas prices continue to rise, it’s time to think outside the box…
Permalink
Posted in Advocacy
by Mark Dieterich at 11:40 am
I was curious what the RI Driver’s Manual had to say about bicycles. Not surprisingly, there wasn’t much in there. They have one small section, which oddly enough spends the majority of the time telling cyclists how to behave, rather than discussing how motorists should interact with bicycles. I think it could be helpful to have a RI Cyclist’s Manual, but this document isn’t that, it’s supposed to be a driver’s manual. So let’s have a look at what they say (with my comments intermixed):
Bicycle riders are given the same rights and must obey the same laws as drivers of automobiles. In addition, they should follow these rules:
- Bicycle riders should ride as close to the right of the road as they can safely do. They must cross the lane of vehicle travel to make a left turn.
Just so their is no confusion, §31-19-6 of the RI Motor and Other Vehicles law states that “Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction except where official traffic control devices (signs or pavement markings) specifically direct bicyclists to do otherwise.” The actual law covering left hand turns is a bit more complicated than the driver’s manual spells out, you can read §31-19-15 to get the full scoop.
- No more than two bicycles may ride side by side
§31-19-7 states ” Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on bicycle trails or paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two (2) abreast shall not unduly impede traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.”
- When there is a safe bicycle path near the roadway, riders should use the path rather than the road.
And this is where the problems start… there is nothing in the RI Motor and Other Vehicle Laws that state anything even remotely close to this. This statement does an injustice to the rights of cyclists to use the roads and does nothing but contribute a false legitimacy to the motorists who would like to see all bikes off the public roads. This should be removed from the driver’s manual.
- Any person 8 years of age or younger riding a bicycle or a passenger on a bicycle on a public highway, bicycle path or other public right of way must wear a certified bicycle helmet.
Time to update the manual, you got your facts wrong… §31-19-2.1 states “Any person fifteen (15) years of age or younger who is operating or who is a passenger on a bicycle or who is using or operating a skateboard, rollerskates, scooter or inline skates on a public highway, bicycle trail or path, shared use path, park and/or recreational area, school property or on any other public right of way shall wear a helmet. The helmet shall fit the person’s head and shall be secured to the person’s head by straps while the person is operating the bicycle, skateboard, scooter, rollerskates or inline skates. The helmet shall meet the standards for helmets established by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or subsequent standards. In no event shall failure to wear a helmet be considered as contributory or comparative negligence, nor shall the failure to wear a helmet be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action.”
UPDATE: I discovered that RIDMV has posted a Corrections to the Driver’s Manual on their webpage that corrects the helmet error. Why they didn’t just update the whole manual, I don’t understand…
- Motor vehicle drivers must be alert and cautious for bicycle riders in or near the street
Hey, something that actual applies to motorists in the driver’s manual. Of course, it would be better if they stated that bicycles should be afforded all the rights of a motor vehicle.
The final count… 2 correct statements, 2 incorrect statements, and only 1 statement that actually applies to motorists.
Permalink
06.19.08
Posted in Advocacy
by sparkjen at 10:16 am
On 3 Days in August, City Will Try No-Car Zone
Published: June 17, 2008
It has been a long-held dream of New Yorkers of a certain (greenish) stripe: the streets of Manhattan free of cars. Now, for a few hours, on a few streets, on a few weekends this summer, that dream will become reality.
Fred R. Conrad/NYT; John Marshall Mantel for NYT
Much of Park Avenue, above, will be closed to cars on parts of Aug. 9, 16 and 23. Right, Lance Armstrong joined Mayor Bloomberg to announce street closings.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
06.18.08
Posted in Advocacy
by Mark Dieterich at 10:19 pm
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, RIDOT announced two more bridge weight restrictions. The Sakonnet River bridge has been reduced to 18 tons and the Pontiac Avenue bridge has been reduced to 10 tons. Keep this up and pretty soon everyone will be riding bikes, nothing heavier will be able to cross the bridges!
In all seriousness, the recent rash of bridge weight reductions seem to point to a larger trend. RIDOT, and I suspect other state DOT groups are facing the same problem, their budgets are getting to a point where they will soon be unable to afford to maintain the infrastructure. Yet, they keep building, because the roads are too crowded and this only exacerbates the problem. I have no interest in having the state continue to increase my taxes to support an infrastructure I just don’t believe we can continue to afford. If faced with similar long term budgetary issues as those that face the state, most of us would figure out a way to cut back.
Here’s a novel idea, how about we spend the funds we do have on creating a better transportation infrastructure that has a people first policy? How about we start dedicating some of the highway lanes to HOV and bus traffic? How about a really crazy idea and we start taking back some of these roadways for people, pedestrians and cyclists. I know, crazy idea, but I’m positive the long term cost of maintaining infrastructure used by pedestrians and cyclists is significantly cheaper than the costs associated with roadways for cars.
Permalink