Bike-Friendly Business Districts

One of the newest trends in sustainable transportation is biking, more specifically Bike-Friendly Business Districts (BFBD's.)  BFBD's are areas in a city, or an entire city if possible, that have extra lanes for biking only, more bike racks and places to park bikes as well as businesses that are bike friendly.  There are many reasons why biking is a good alternative to driving, but now the benefits are starting to reach to the business as well.

When consumers use bikes to get around they typically will stay closer to home because of biking distance limitations.  When this happens they support local businesses more, which is better for the economy.  they typically will shop more in fact because they see every store at a slower speed and are able to have a better understanding of what is available.

In an update report on transportationissuesdaily.com, the question was asked about how hard it is to create BFBD like the ones in the East Village of NYC.  For some places where many have been biking for years, BFBD's are easy, it is just about officially setting up more bike parking (and bike valet's in some places.)  Some areas have had a flat 10% discount for costumers who arrive on bike, which has actually been as effective as expected.  It seems this is because most people who will shop on bikes will do so with or without a discount and not many are willing, or able to come from other districts.

It seems to me that BFBD can be a positive addition of any business district, as long as there are enough residents close by who can ride and bike to and from the store and there are safe ways for those bicyclists to get to and from the stores without having to compete to much with busy traffic.


For more information on BFBD read the following links:

http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/whats-working-at-the-newest-bike-friendly-business-district/
http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/emerging-trend-bicycle-friendly-business-districts/
http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/nine-reasons-to-create-a-bicycle-friendly-business-district/

Cashless Tolls, Good or Bad

This past Thanksgiving weekend I was driving through New York, specifically the Yonkers and Bronx area, on my way home when all of a sudden with no warning there was a toll booth.  What made this toll booth odd was there were were NO cash options and we did not have an EZ pass on the car we were driving.  These cashless toll roads are becoming more popular around the country from major highways in Texas and Florida to California and New York.  In fact the new Scudders Falls Bridge, which spans the Delaware River for I-95, will soon be replaced with a cashless toll.  For those cars that do not have any EZ Pass system, like mine last weekend, a camera takes a picture of the license plate and a bill is sent home.  These are just part of the overall implementation of more technologies in transportation discussed in William R. Black's Sustainable Transportation chapter 21.

According to traffic planners working on projects like the Scudders Falls Bridge the new cashless tolls help reduce cost to run toll systems and speed up traffic. While this is true, there are some critics.  One of the biggest critics are tourists.  The big issue with tourists is that many will use a rented car and are unaware of the areas new tolling systems are will drive right through them.  The rental company then later gets the bill and will pass it on, sometimes with up to a $25 "administrative" fee.  One way that this is being combated is renting transponders that cashless toll systems use so that the renter can use the tolls and pay for them at the end of their trip.

I think that overall, while it may be a hassle to some people, in the long run this system will work.  Hopefully as more toll roads become cashless, more people will buy the transponders which is simple; EZ Pass only costs $10 per car with no other fees besides the tolls themselves.  Once a majority, or everyone with cars has transponders, then all toll booths can go cashless, saving money and speeding up traffic.

For more information please check out these two articles:

http://www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2012/08/13/yardley_news/news/doc50285b6909974643223619.txt?viewmode=fullstory

http://www.elliott.org/the-navigator/cashless-toll-roads-another-hazard-for-car-renters/


What do you think?

CNN Predicting Transportation Change in Near Future

In a headlining article on CNN.com, CNN experts are predicting that the next 10 years will be a time of drastic change for the transportation industry.  Experts are predicting there will be changes in each of the big three transportation sectors; rail, air and automobile.

According to Brett Snyder, airline consumer expert, the trend of low-cost airlines will continue as they are the ones make most of the money.  But they will evolve to charge passengers for every from using the bathroom to possibly having standing-room-only sections on flights.  This could turn dangerous as those who can afford to pay will suddenly have all of the amenities while others will have little to no amenities or flying options, thus segregating the airline industry.  I think that the current model with most airlines sticking to tradition charging and services with some ultra-low cost airlines giving travelers cheap options is working and should remain the same.  If there is too much evolution to cheap flights, then the airline industry may not be able to sustain itself.

The article also address the importance of the new laws in California and Nevada allowing for driverless cars to be on the roads.  This will allow for more research and development and implementation according to some.  it is predicted that the current timeline shows that non-experimental driverless cars will be used within the next 5 years in states that allow it.  This could potentially be huge for the auto industry and driverless cars have the possibility of making roads more efficient and safer and thus more sustainable.

The article also touched on the use of rail lines in the near future.  The article points out that "more passengers have used Amtrak this year than ever before in it's 41-year history."  This is believed to have happened because of better service and better funding as the country looks for ways to improve it's transportation network.  It is even predicted that traveling between major cities by train on a daily basis will soon become a normal thing.  This could potentially make drastic changes to the transportation network of the future.  If the train industry begins to catch on again, then there is a possibility that if there is enough of a demand then more rail lines and stations will be built, thus further improving the rail industry.

It is clear that the US transportation industry is headed for some major changes, I am just not sure where they are headed, and how positive they will be.

What do you think?

For more information, check out the article yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/travel/future-travel/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Thanksgiving Crashes Down Where Safety is Enforced

The week that revolves around Thanksgiving can always be a hectic one with traveling both for the holiday itself and the pseudo holiday that is Black Friday.  Because of this traffic is more congested and there are typically more incidents.  One state chose to take action this year and combat the annual traffic and accident nightmare.

This year Illinois implemented a new "Drive to Survive" campaign using both media PSAs and stricter enforcement to decrease motor vehicle crash fatalities by 63%.  In 2011, Illinois had seven crashes and eight fatalities with no special campaign and only two crashes and 3 vehicle fatalities over the same time period this year.  Illinois Transportation Secretary Ann L. Schneider says the improvement can be attested to "significant progress in recent years to improve traffic safety and reduce fatalities....and Thanksgiving holiday weekend was no exception."

For more information you can read the article below:

http://www.chillicothetimesbulletin.com/article/20121127/NEWS/121129694/-1/opinion

I think that this is finally an example of how a combination of enforcement and PSAs to decrease traffic incidents.  It seems other places typically try and have just PSAs or just enforcement.  I believe that a combination of every viable option is necessary, and this is proof.

What do you think?

Human Barriers, Helping Pedestrians??

Picture of human barriers near Lincoln Financial Field on game night.

Above you can see a picture that I took a while back leaving a Sunday night Philadelphia Eagles game.  The game was against the rivaled New York Giants so the crowds were expected to be higher than usual.  The area around the stadium has a lot of pedestrian traffic coming from the dozen or so massive parking lots that supply parking to most of the stadium.  Because of this, for this game the city lined some of the curbs around the stadium with pedestrian barriers.  This was obviously done to prevent pedestrians, especially ones under the influence of alcohol, from attempting to cross the street and obstruct traffic, or worse, be hit by a car.

While I think that in some cases this type of pedestrian protection is great, and I do believe that this may have helped, I think it also could have, and may have caused some issues.  For one thing, the barriers then corral pedestrians into the crosswalks, which cause a back up in pedestrian traffic.  This in fact causes pedestrians to then hope the barriers and walk in the roads.  I know this because I was one of those pedestrians who chose to jump over it at a point where the road was actually closed off to vehicular traffic.  I also witnessed several drunk pedestrians try to climb over them and fall, landing almost directly on their faces (luckily I saw no injuries.)

My point is, while these barriers were placed to make everyone safer and keep vehicular traffic moving, from what I saw they did more harm then good.

What do you think? 

Speed and Crashes

Chapter 14 of William R. Black's Sustainable Transportation discusses the role that speed limits play in sustainable transportation.  Black discusses how motors consume more gas and produce more emissions as speeds increase as well as congestion.  What I think the most important part about speed and sustainability is the number of crashes, both fatal and nonfatal, that occur because of the speed limits.

First off I would like to preface this post by saying that as a writer I can not write this post from an unbiased perspective as I live in a family who has lost family members due to driving accidents and almost lost more that was directly due to speeding.  I also find myself speeding quite a lot so I am pointing out that I am a hypocrite in many cases.

From William R. Black's Sustainable Transportation chapter 14, page 165.

The above chart is a break down of fatal and nonfatal crashes on the various classifications of roadways in the US.  According to Black, no real connection between speed and fatalities can be made in most cases.  I for one though would have to disagree.  There are many cases in which drivers are driving too fast and can not control themselves when presented with an obstacle or a possible incident, thus crash.  One could then say that those drivers were probably speeding and going above the speed limit and I would attend to agree with this statement.  So the real question is not if there is a correlation between the speed limit and crashes, but if there is a correlation between crashes and drivers exceeding the speed limit.  I would certainly think that there must be a correlation between these two things, as it is one of the main reasons not to speed.  For example, my mother was in a major car accident that led to several injuries.  The accident only happened because a teenage driver was speeding at 45 miles an hour in a 25 mile and hour speed zone over a hill and could not see her stopped for pedestrians and rear-ended her.  If the driver had been traveling the correct speed, the one that was designed for the hill, then the accident would either not have happened or not have been as serious.

The question then is how can we better enforce speed limits.  I think there are a few ways that this can happen.  One is to make fines for speeding higher enforcement must go up.  By enforcement I mean not having a car parked in plain view of everyone because many times that causes cars to suddenly slow down to speeds much slower then they need to.  As someone who regrettably does speed, I know that I slow down if I think I am being watched and would certainly slow down if it meant several hundred dollars in tickets as opposed to getting a ticket for a "dirty license plate" which I did receive once.

What do you think about speed and safety?

Policies Must Change

Chapter 13 of William R. Black's Sustainable Transportation, entitled "A Contimuum of Policies" is the first chapter the book's section on policy in sustainable transportation.  The chapter begins, as always with a quote, this time from Daniel Sperling who in 1995 said, "Government policy toward motor vehicles is fragmented and increasingly misguided, resulting in small environmental benefits being gained at exorbitant cost."  While I agree that there are certainly some bad decisions being made in policy throughout the country, and the world at various different levels, it is not always the fault of those in charge.  For example, the lowest level of policy makers for transportation are towns, cities and counties.  These policy makers can affect the level of sustainability in transportation by controlling land use by zoning, controlling some aspects of public transportation and controlling parking.  Some of these actions can take years to take place and can sometimes even conflict with themselves.  It is also hard for even a large county to properly make decisions as they run on what are usually small budgets and  little resources and can not make effective changes.

For many states, the same problems that have plagued local municipalities and counties have made it difficult for states to make major changes.  While they do have more resources and more power, states still have small populations relative to the rest of the nation and thus, can not make effective changes.  This seems to hold true for every state, except for California according to Black.  Because Southern California has had such horrible air quality problems since it's initial population, California has been one of the only state to pass effective and sustainable clean air and emissions acts and has essentially set itself to be the standard for the rest of the country.  California has even recently continued toward a more sustainable transportation future and has become the first state to legalize computer driven cars on the road.  Even though there are none on the commercial market, this will allow for the research to be completed.

I think for the rest of the country, and the world to properly begin to make sustainable transportation solutions, many aspects of how the state of California runs it's policy making should be studied and used elsewhere.  What do you think?