Many cyclists don't defend BMX access rights in parks and on roads. And what about roller blades, skateboards, scooters, golf carts, horses, and segways. Are these vehicles too that should be able to travel on the road?
BMX bikes are an absolute joy for
short trips and great around potholes. If more people rode BMX we'd
have safer slower streets that are really fun.
The problem is that we have given our streets over to toxic exhaust
spewing boxes of killer steel couches. And then pay with sales taxes
after the couches deteriorate the street. And then adjust our mobility
options to only include what's feasible with autos at auto speeds. This
sets up conflicts between say boards or Segways and Pedestrian about
sidewalk usage; and bikes and pedestrians or equestrians about trail
usage- when the real conflict is happily running us over with immunity.
And then pompous city councils go out and legislate what's ok; as you
caught in the paper today.
For example the Grand Boulevard (the El Camino planning process
currently underway) should include a CurbBBB lane. Thats a curb lane,
only for Boards, Bikes, and Buses, which will work if the bus frequency
is less than 15 mins like we have here on the Peninsula. The second
lane would be the auto lane. More options and a faster commute times
would make buses feasible as a transport mode on El Camino. One
argument against this is that we need infinite capacity to accommodate
the 5PM rat run! 'nuf said.
Similarly the Air Resources Board is tying itself up in knots trying to
come up with high tech zero co2 transport modes like electric cars,
PHEVs etc. to tackle the 50% of GHGs from our steel couches which used
as directed per the owner's manual , are smoking the planet. Instead ARB
must enable zero co2 modes that exist like boards and bikes by giving
cities clean air credits to make at least two crossing streets through
a downtown 15 mph (similar to a bike boulevard like Bryant except for
the 15 mph designed in requirement.) That way drivers can continue to
kill children and grandparents and the planet everywhere else but bikes
and boards have a real option.
Give all kids much more options
that just access to one miserable park to fight BMX versus boards.
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/redwood-city-daily-news/
TLA29TF0EIK7ADMRC
At park, no bikers allowed
Officials to build fence to keep skateboarders safe
By Shaun Bishop / Daily News Staff Writer
A new fence around a popular Redwood City skate park
that would keep bikers out and skateboarders in could
be erected as soon as January, Redwood City parks
officials say.
Article continues
Friday, November 30, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Bikes are sustainable and green for the planet.
Saving the planet from global warming is as simple as building up a fat savings account.
Fossil fuel usage is the cause of global warming. Producing goods for consumptions is killing the planet. Not using fossil fuels saves the planet. Lets look at the numbers
1- 40% of California green house gases come from transportation. Use transit. The $5500/- per year cost of owning a car and operating a car less the cost of bus passes for four of $1440 results in a net savings of $4060/- per year. The cost of not having a garage reduces housing cost from 15% to 30% which means a one time savings of at least $60,000/- Or like one percent of all American commuters get a bike ($20/- at Goodwill) and with a $60/- tool kit become truly independent, fit and healthy and save the $4060/-
Carbon free walking and biking with some transit are the only transport modes that can save the planet. The car is only trying to take over the planet and consume our food. A consumerist attitude would look to guide you into buying a hybrid. Don't fall for smothering the planet in less GHGs, which are still GHG. Dump the car off to a parts recycler instead. If transit is your goal use your savings from not driving to move to be on transit closer to work. Staying in the suburbs away from work only locks you into a mortgage and a lousy job.
2- 25% of GHG are produced in homes from using electricity and natural gas for cooling and heating. Instead extend your eves with corrugated tin for natural shading in the summer and open your windows. Wear a ski hat and warm clothes in the winter. Put your average $2500 PGE savings in the bank. You can reduce your $300/- per year gas cooking by building a solar oven from scrap but that's the next step. Washing dishes by hand and using the dish water for plants can save an additional $240 per year. Replacing a lawn with a vegetable patch can save an additional $1200/- per year. Remove bulbs from sockets so that they can't be left on or consume power. Unplug appliances. Junk your TV and take a hike. Net savings $600/- a year.
Consumerism would have you believe that expensive energy star appliances are the only way to a sustainable life! Its a sustainable life if you want to suck up to the rich and famous, a martha steward life. Don't buy it, sustain your bank account. Use some of your savings for better insulation at a later date. Be careful less can buy more here too.
3- 25% of GHG come from industry using fossil fuels and degrading human rights to make the throw away trinkets that junk up our homes. Put the money in the bank. If you must have junk first look at your local freecycle.org to see if you can get it for free. Then check your local goodwill or equivalent store. Then see if you can make it or make do without it. Then borrow from a neighbor. But don't choke the planet for your vanity.as the first option.
Consumerists would have you believe a house stocked with the latest power consuming gadgets is necessary for the economy. Its necessary to justify the war and some bank accounts and has nothing to do with the economy you want for a healthy planet.
4. With your savings pay off your loan, then quit your job or work less hours so you can spend more time with friends and neighbors. A healthy planet should be fun. Go to the library. Attend your water board meetings and make sure your tap water is safe to drink.
Fossil fuel usage is the cause of global warming. Producing goods for consumptions is killing the planet. Not using fossil fuels saves the planet. Lets look at the numbers
1- 40% of California green house gases come from transportation. Use transit. The $5500/- per year cost of owning a car and operating a car less the cost of bus passes for four of $1440 results in a net savings of $4060/- per year. The cost of not having a garage reduces housing cost from 15% to 30% which means a one time savings of at least $60,000/- Or like one percent of all American commuters get a bike ($20/- at Goodwill) and with a $60/- tool kit become truly independent, fit and healthy and save the $4060/-
Carbon free walking and biking with some transit are the only transport modes that can save the planet. The car is only trying to take over the planet and consume our food. A consumerist attitude would look to guide you into buying a hybrid. Don't fall for smothering the planet in less GHGs, which are still GHG. Dump the car off to a parts recycler instead. If transit is your goal use your savings from not driving to move to be on transit closer to work. Staying in the suburbs away from work only locks you into a mortgage and a lousy job.
2- 25% of GHG are produced in homes from using electricity and natural gas for cooling and heating. Instead extend your eves with corrugated tin for natural shading in the summer and open your windows. Wear a ski hat and warm clothes in the winter. Put your average $2500 PGE savings in the bank. You can reduce your $300/- per year gas cooking by building a solar oven from scrap but that's the next step. Washing dishes by hand and using the dish water for plants can save an additional $240 per year. Replacing a lawn with a vegetable patch can save an additional $1200/- per year. Remove bulbs from sockets so that they can't be left on or consume power. Unplug appliances. Junk your TV and take a hike. Net savings $600/- a year.
Consumerism would have you believe that expensive energy star appliances are the only way to a sustainable life! Its a sustainable life if you want to suck up to the rich and famous, a martha steward life. Don't buy it, sustain your bank account. Use some of your savings for better insulation at a later date. Be careful less can buy more here too.
3- 25% of GHG come from industry using fossil fuels and degrading human rights to make the throw away trinkets that junk up our homes. Put the money in the bank. If you must have junk first look at your local freecycle.org to see if you can get it for free. Then check your local goodwill or equivalent store. Then see if you can make it or make do without it. Then borrow from a neighbor. But don't choke the planet for your vanity.as the first option.
Consumerists would have you believe a house stocked with the latest power consuming gadgets is necessary for the economy. Its necessary to justify the war and some bank accounts and has nothing to do with the economy you want for a healthy planet.
4. With your savings pay off your loan, then quit your job or work less hours so you can spend more time with friends and neighbors. A healthy planet should be fun. Go to the library. Attend your water board meetings and make sure your tap water is safe to drink.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Parking landuse decisions affect bicycling
On Nov 2nd the Daily Journal reported that the parking in-lieu fee of $9000/- collected for the past three years in San Mateo was insufficient for a parking lot. The city only has $1.5M. Business wants parking and pollution but is refusing to pay to make it happen. This is clearly not sustainable.
( http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=82765
City on quest for parking garage)
The price mentioned for a parking spot, of $30,000/- is low. A parking spot is 10 feet by 18 feet which equals 180 sq feet. At $100/- per sq foot for unimproved land in San Mateo the spot would cost 18,000/-
However a parking spot by itself is useless. You also need to be able
to access it. Access lanes and streets space dedicated to get to parking spots raise the size of the spot to 300-350 sq feet. This is the number used when building off street parking.
Thus $30,000/- price is already at the low end for unimproved land. And we haven't paved it or added in the percent of the annual $30M Publics Works and Planning budgets for street and sewer maintenance and other issues like stormwater runoff, system overload, sewer leakage, associated with un-permeable surfaces; or police and fire services for crashes downtown while trying to access parking; or the markup for built structures that typically come in after the land cost exceed $1M like the movie garage on Second and B street. My neighbor was hit at Third and B and had his bike crushed and his tailbone broken.
The real price is closer to $44,000/-
Clearly the public handout for drivers to take away the fare box recovery of Caltrain and Samtrans and make bike access to the downtown dangerous so drivers can roam around for parking is about $35,000/- per spot. Now consider that the city is willing to replace local recreation access like the tennis court with this giveaway. What price do you put on the necessity for an athletic club membership? What's the price of the quality of downtown
life that has been privatized away? What is the price of asthma downtown? These are called external costs. A EU study said that they are typically two more for every one real dollar.
Instead of looking at other funding options we request that the city put a
fair price on parking. Borrow a page from Redwood City and give residents real options and a better quality of life. An air quality grant from the CCAG can get a delivery program started for merchant downtown, taking away the need to drive. A parking assessment district can be used to get to zero traffic housing and pay for delivery.
We realize that San Mateo is not the only one giving away valuable land resources. San Carlos has an in-lieu parking fee of $7000/-. Belmont has an in-lieu fee of zero. But at $100/- a barrel of oil people don’t have a lot of options. Improving quality of life for downtown residents, reducing large capital costs, taking away traffic that causes pollution, crashes and road wear, having a cash positive land resource that was previously fallow, and providing an incentive for people to walk and shop has to be sustainable and profitable in the long run. The sustainable return on investment can be furthur improved by building unbundled parking housing and provide parking cashout for employees on what used to be parking lots.
( http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=82765
City on quest for parking garage)
The price mentioned for a parking spot, of $30,000/- is low. A parking spot is 10 feet by 18 feet which equals 180 sq feet. At $100/- per sq foot for unimproved land in San Mateo the spot would cost 18,000/-
However a parking spot by itself is useless. You also need to be able
to access it. Access lanes and streets space dedicated to get to parking spots raise the size of the spot to 300-350 sq feet. This is the number used when building off street parking.
Thus $30,000/- price is already at the low end for unimproved land. And we haven't paved it or added in the percent of the annual $30M Publics Works and Planning budgets for street and sewer maintenance and other issues like stormwater runoff, system overload, sewer leakage, associated with un-permeable surfaces; or police and fire services for crashes downtown while trying to access parking; or the markup for built structures that typically come in after the land cost exceed $1M like the movie garage on Second and B street. My neighbor was hit at Third and B and had his bike crushed and his tailbone broken.
The real price is closer to $44,000/-
Clearly the public handout for drivers to take away the fare box recovery of Caltrain and Samtrans and make bike access to the downtown dangerous so drivers can roam around for parking is about $35,000/- per spot. Now consider that the city is willing to replace local recreation access like the tennis court with this giveaway. What price do you put on the necessity for an athletic club membership? What's the price of the quality of downtown
life that has been privatized away? What is the price of asthma downtown? These are called external costs. A EU study said that they are typically two more for every one real dollar.
Instead of looking at other funding options we request that the city put a
fair price on parking. Borrow a page from Redwood City and give residents real options and a better quality of life. An air quality grant from the CCAG can get a delivery program started for merchant downtown, taking away the need to drive. A parking assessment district can be used to get to zero traffic housing and pay for delivery.
We realize that San Mateo is not the only one giving away valuable land resources. San Carlos has an in-lieu parking fee of $7000/-. Belmont has an in-lieu fee of zero. But at $100/- a barrel of oil people don’t have a lot of options. Improving quality of life for downtown residents, reducing large capital costs, taking away traffic that causes pollution, crashes and road wear, having a cash positive land resource that was previously fallow, and providing an incentive for people to walk and shop has to be sustainable and profitable in the long run. The sustainable return on investment can be furthur improved by building unbundled parking housing and provide parking cashout for employees on what used to be parking lots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
