baltimorespokes

from CenterLines, the e-newsletter of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking.
-> According to a Mar. 7th L.A. Times article, "Older drivers may have a breadth of driving experience working for them behind the wheel. But a new study finds they tend to have a narrower field of vision than younger drivers and often miss developments on the curb or sidewalk that could demand their attention. The study, published online Monday by the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, found that drivers over 65 were half as likely to notice pedestrians near or moving toward the street as were experienced drivers between the ages of 28 and 45. Placing the two groups of drivers in a simulator and in front of videos taken from a driver’s eye view, researchers from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev found that older drivers took longer to respond to road hazards as well."
"And compared to younger drivers simulating a drive through a variety of streetscapes, those over 65 tapped on their brakes in response to a ‘roadside hazard’ about half as often, suggesting either that they did not see it or that they did not consider it something they needed to attend to. The good news (unless you’re driving behind one of these motor vehicle operators and you’re late for an appointment) is that the older drivers drive more slowly — about 20% more slowly — perhaps to compensate for shortcomings in their peripheral vision and attention…"
Source: https://tinyurl.com/6dnjgp6
-> "’Motor vehicle crashes are still the leading cause of death for from ages 3 through 34. They are taking our youngest people away. There are 93 deaths every day, one death every 16 minutes."
— Dr. Federico Vaca, professor of emergency medicine, Yale School of Medicine
https://tinyurl.com/6eapseb

from Cycle Jerk
…
Most of the time coworkers take the path of least resistance and go for the simple "So! How was the ride?", followed by "You’re crazy man!" after my response. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice gesture and I do appreciate the thought. This person wants to hear how cool my commute was, and that’s cool. However, the question is asked of me so often I started giving it right back to the source.
"My ride was awesome! How was your drive in?"
This is met with a wide spectrum of responses;
…
This led me to ponder the trend… it seems to be a common assumption that being a bike commuter, my daily ride in is always great and that any commute by car is always shitty. If that assumption is both true and common why aren’t people more open minded about bike commuting?
The same person who complains about the traffic every day gets to work with two assumptions, that my ride in was awesome and that I’m crazy for doing it.
My assumption is that a good percentage of these people live an easily rideable distance from the office.
I apologize, that was way too many assumptions for one post.
…
PSA Bike to Work Day in the DC Area: https://www.waba.org/events/btwd/
In the Baltimore Area: https://www.baltometro.org/commuter-options/bike-to-work-day
Continue reading “Small Talk Paradox: "How Was Your Commute?"”

This animation comes from Commute Orlando. It amazes me how many road “engineers” can’t figure out why this is a bad design.

Continue reading “Why do people j-walk?”

from Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space by Richard Layman

1. The primary reason that I don’t talk about “how great it is” “to expand people’s choices” when it comes to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure is because it’s not about choice, it’s about efficiency and optimality.

The issue isn’t giving people more choices, it’s about using scarce resources more effectively.

First image: Muenster, Germany bike vs. car vs. bus vs. walking poster. Second image: Mobility efficiency, Central Washington (DC) Transportation and Civic Design Study, 1977. John Passonneau, lead investigator.

It’s much more optimal–given the right spatial form–to walk or bike or use transit than it is to use a car–at least for a community, if not for an individual.

It’s why we talk about “mass” transit.

2. The desire to maintain the primacy of the automobile in transportation planning on the part of drivers especially is the source of the animus with regard to prioritizing (or rebalancing) transportation infrastructure development towards biking, walking, and transit.

This is what’s behind the fight against bike lanes everywhere, not just in NYC. See “Battle of the Bike Lanes” from the New Yorker and “Suit Over Brooklyn Bike Lane Challenges City Initiative” from the New York Times.

While various people have written counter-pieces to the New Yorker article, the reality is that it comes down to the question of optimality and yes, externalities and properly pricing them (see “Tragedies of the commons: The world is his parking spot” from the Economist blog).

3. The third point is something deserving of a blog entry of its own, but it’s not like I haven’t written about it ad infinitum already.

The issue is that reframing and rebuilding the transportation mode split where walking, biking, and transit are significantly used to conduct a majority of trips _is a process_ that will take a long time.

John Cassidy writes in the New Yorker:

But from an economic perspective I also question whether the blanketing of the city with bike lanes—more than two hundred miles in the past three years—meets an objective cost-benefit criterion. Beyond a certain point, given the limited number of bicyclists in the city, the benefits of extra bike lanes must run into diminishing returns, and the costs to motorists (and pedestrians) of implementing the policies must increase. Have we reached that point? I would say so.

He is missing the point entirely. You don’t build infrastructure for today’s use only, but to provide the means to achieve your mode split goals.

In Copenhagen, close to 40% of all daily trips–not just trips to work–are conducted by bike.
…
Continue reading “Missing at least three points about sustainable transportation”