http://barcamp.org/TransitCampBayArea
It started out with a presentation by Mark Simon of Samtrans on the issues and data around buses. There was some discussion on the Translink but it is no way as convenient as FasTrak. Also some discussion on modal point a to point b times and aggregating the data for all these modes and looking for equivalence in some corridors. And the big success with the bullet service.
Then Kelly Furgerson and Terry Nagel and a councilperson from Pacifica did a presentation on the Coalition to Expand Transit Services. They pronounce the acronym as seats meaning more seats on the train. But Samtrans runs parallel bus service with Caltrain and there was some talk around how to use the buses more effectively and line them up with the Caltrain schedules including the funding of shuttles. Pacifica was interested in coastside connections which today are missing on weekends. I think we should have both expanded transit service and bullet service.
Andy Chow of Bay Rail Alliance developed a transit wiki. This was great because it sought to present all the info that was missing when people want to use transit like to get into the station and how to use the ticket machine etc. The wiki needs to have trails added and get the bicycle connections flushed out. The bike connector could be augmented with business' around the station that have bike parking and maybe if they give a discount.
Google's presentation was a bit elitist about using maps and other tools to track buses via GPS but that could be overcome if the tools are adopted by agencies and displayed at the station or kiosk.
Then NextBus did an excellent presentation and they said that to make it happen they needed data (like bus schedules) from the agency and a manifesto from Transit Camp which should ask for the data to be released in a public format. Nextbus can provide a full kiosk at a station or a display sign in a bus shelter which Cities in the Grand Boulevard should take into account for the area specific plans involving the El Camino. I talked to Terry Nagel afterwards and said I've known about Nextbus for ten years now and have seen their data displayed in bus shelters in Europe. Nagel said that we need to talk to decision makers and that means the JPB board and the Samtrans board and the SamTA board and perhaps the CCAG board too and the Coalition for Efficient Transit. She said that way everyone can be asking for Nextbus and there could be a move to get the TA to release the data.
The camp was the idea of a couple of techy folks. Adina one of the presenters talked about using blogs and websites to develop opinions on transit issues like say Caltrans and then having more say with policy makers and the news media. And speaking of tech EFF was there too!
Zimride was a bit different because it involved car sharing and didn't quite address transit. However empty seats in cars are the biggest unused transport asset out there so maybe it was cool. I though they could work with cities like Belmont to provide a shared taxi type of service to deliver people to Caltrain. Their main asset is that they present a kind of security because they are designed through Facebook. Jeffery who presented for them thought that the program could be used more locally to help moms get kids to commute to school.
Ryanishungry.com was a cool video site that makes informational videos on how to use transit. Similar to what Lyndon Johnson was doing at BART. The lady who presented did one on taking the train to LA and then using a Metro to go downtown. She had to be downtown in an hour and was able to do it and the total cost was 2.50 roundtrip instead of about 85 one way by taxi. She said that there could be videos on how to get a ticket from the vending machine at Caltrain and how to cross El Camino at Ralston, etc. so people could take the guesswork out of having to try transit.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Ralston 101 mulitmodal issues
The issues with Ralston numbered historically are
1- Bike lanes or a wide through lane.
The on off ramp needs to be reconfigured with paint from the Oracle
side to provide access on the through lane westbound. A bike lane or
sixteen foot lane would work here. This would fix today's shortfall
providing access over the interchange until the bridge is built.
2- Routine accommodation.
This problem would not have arrisen if CCAG had adopted MTC Resolution
3765. We could have had routine accommodation for the cost of paint.
3- Safety.
Safety funds were used by CCAG in construction of the interchange.
www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/delivery/Annual_Listing_FY06.pdf
We ask that the situation with respect to cyclist auto collisions be
reviewed since the Oracle project was finished in 2004 and fixes
outlined.
4- Fund the Ralston Bike Ped Bridge.
Many users are uncomfortable riding on large roads with crossing
traffic like the reconfigured Ralston 101 interchange. CCAG took this
into account fifteen years ago when this project was proposed in the
CCAG BPAC CBP. At this juncture CCAG should fund this bridge as a top
priority because of diminished access since the Oracle project.
5- Urban Trail System
Users who tend to use separate structures like the proposed Ralston
bike ped bridge include children. These bridges are large and
expensive and in some places provide access to recreation like the Bay
Trail. In others like Hillsdale the access egress is compromised. CCAG
BPAC should propose a connected urban trail system across the county
linked to the land uses of children to take advantage of these
expensive structures. An UTS would use bicycle boulevard, choker and
diverter restricted auto access streets like Bryant in Palo Alto, to
connect across urban built out areas.
Since June of 2004 when the Ralston 101 interchange came on line we have talked to-
Julian Carrol, bicycle coordinator at Caltrans, who first reviewed our
complaints on Ralston in 2004 and put us in contact with Peter
Voramasante in Redwood City. Peter asked us to contact Dwight
Campbell.
Dwight Campbell, the safety engineer at Caltrans, said that the design
team took into account the availability of the bike bridge and he's
sorry that hasn't been built yet.
John Lynch, the head engineer at RWC, last week told us he doesn't
know anything because Caltrans tells them what gets built.
Ray Davis the Public Works Manager at Belmont which co managed the
project with RWC says that Belmont hasn't bought off on the project
and will ask Caltrans about the wider through lane coming from the
east. This item is before the Belmont Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Sue Lempert, MTC commissioner, said that she understands our complaint
and that "Bicyclists shouldn't be penalized today for promises tomorrow."
Belmont police chief Don Mattei said that the south bound on ramp for
101 from Ralston, since 2004, is where the most collisions occur
between bike and cars in Belmont. We think because the access from the
east is so dangerous looking, with the right turning lanes for
northbound on ramp, that riders are using the sidewalk on the south
side of the interchange and running into cars that don't expect them.
Scot Mace saw the design in '98 and warned in a newspaper article that
it would be dangerous.
Belmont BPAC has discussed with City Manger Jack Crist the hold ups in
bridge funding. We've also talked this over with Richard Napier, ED for
CCAG, and the misdirected usage of the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan as a
document for road planning. Napier has offered to bring all the parties
together to discuss the issues.
1- Bike lanes or a wide through lane.
The on off ramp needs to be reconfigured with paint from the Oracle
side to provide access on the through lane westbound. A bike lane or
sixteen foot lane would work here. This would fix today's shortfall
providing access over the interchange until the bridge is built.
2- Routine accommodation.
This problem would not have arrisen if CCAG had adopted MTC Resolution
3765. We could have had routine accommodation for the cost of paint.
3- Safety.
Safety funds were used by CCAG in construction of the interchange.
www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/delivery/Annual_Listing_FY06.pdf
We ask that the situation with respect to cyclist auto collisions be
reviewed since the Oracle project was finished in 2004 and fixes
outlined.
4- Fund the Ralston Bike Ped Bridge.
Many users are uncomfortable riding on large roads with crossing
traffic like the reconfigured Ralston 101 interchange. CCAG took this
into account fifteen years ago when this project was proposed in the
CCAG BPAC CBP. At this juncture CCAG should fund this bridge as a top
priority because of diminished access since the Oracle project.
5- Urban Trail System
Users who tend to use separate structures like the proposed Ralston
bike ped bridge include children. These bridges are large and
expensive and in some places provide access to recreation like the Bay
Trail. In others like Hillsdale the access egress is compromised. CCAG
BPAC should propose a connected urban trail system across the county
linked to the land uses of children to take advantage of these
expensive structures. An UTS would use bicycle boulevard, choker and
diverter restricted auto access streets like Bryant in Palo Alto, to
connect across urban built out areas.
Since June of 2004 when the Ralston 101 interchange came on line we have talked to-
Julian Carrol, bicycle coordinator at Caltrans, who first reviewed our
complaints on Ralston in 2004 and put us in contact with Peter
Voramasante in Redwood City. Peter asked us to contact Dwight
Campbell.
Dwight Campbell, the safety engineer at Caltrans, said that the design
team took into account the availability of the bike bridge and he's
sorry that hasn't been built yet.
John Lynch, the head engineer at RWC, last week told us he doesn't
know anything because Caltrans tells them what gets built.
Ray Davis the Public Works Manager at Belmont which co managed the
project with RWC says that Belmont hasn't bought off on the project
and will ask Caltrans about the wider through lane coming from the
east. This item is before the Belmont Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Sue Lempert, MTC commissioner, said that she understands our complaint
and that "Bicyclists shouldn't be penalized today for promises tomorrow."
Belmont police chief Don Mattei said that the south bound on ramp for
101 from Ralston, since 2004, is where the most collisions occur
between bike and cars in Belmont. We think because the access from the
east is so dangerous looking, with the right turning lanes for
northbound on ramp, that riders are using the sidewalk on the south
side of the interchange and running into cars that don't expect them.
Scot Mace saw the design in '98 and warned in a newspaper article that
it would be dangerous.
Belmont BPAC has discussed with City Manger Jack Crist the hold ups in
bridge funding. We've also talked this over with Richard Napier, ED for
CCAG, and the misdirected usage of the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan as a
document for road planning. Napier has offered to bring all the parties
together to discuss the issues.
SB 713 $4 increase in VLF for congestion management is flawed
NOTE- the actual bill number will be SB 348 (Simitian).
The analysis for this bill shows some of the serious environmental harm that comes from auto usage such as copper and mercury from break lines that gets into our water supply. We also know of many others such as cancer and asthma from emissions of 10 and 2.5 micron particles and that the latter has a three day 1500 mile lifetime and will not be required to be controlled until 2015. We also know that WHO recommends measurement and mitigation at 1.8 microns because “an increasing range of adverse health effects has been linked to air pollution, and at ever-lower concentrations” page 10. Moderate air pollution can trigger heart attacks during exercise. Our kids suffer permanent lung damage within 500 feet of a major roadway. Tire dust is another carcinogen that is difficult to control as the number of vehicles increase which both MTC and ABAG acknowledge. Unlivable cities for our parents and children are such a big problem, that after obsessing all our lives over the cities we love to the point of straining our families, we can't wait to retire and get out of here.
At this point in our history a congestion management program to reduce the environmental impact of driving should reduce driving. The spending goals of this bill are misdirected toward increasing driving. A $4 fee increase is inadequate for reducing congestion through cost. Studies show that despite the recent dramatic increases in gas prices people continue to drive primarily because they feel they have no choice. Thus $4/- is not an appropriate user fees to increase cost sufficient to mitigate the impact of driving on the environment. While this fee shows some minor benefits for users, like higher speeds, it does not address the larger public which has to drink the water and breathe the air and whose children could get run over because of an inability to address congestion at its source.
25% of the total funds collected by this bill are distributed directly to the 21 jurisdictions for congestion related programs and projects such as signal timing, resurfacing, and swales. Signal timing comes under the category of intelligent transportation systems and we have already seen CCAG allocate $10M to this category to retime and control local signals so that traffic on 101 can use local streets to get to El Camino from upto 15 miles prior to a crash. Which we have already said is a problem because the traffic on El Camino should enhance the business district not be cut through traffic that hinders business by making the area polluted noisy and dangerous. Another 25% of the total fund is reserved for countywide projects such as the hydrogen stations which fortunately PG&E, following the electric car debacle, realizes is another boondoggle and has refused to support this $20M wasted program. Hydrogen like BART, Peninsula cities have found, is an illusion which aids driving by consuming huge pots of money that could go toward realistic solutions like hybrid ZEB buses. The funding also involves countywide traffic management systems currently under consideration by the C/CAG technical committees which also fit under ITS to increase driving.
There are many realistic programs that have been shown to work in reducing driving such as traffic calming, parking charges, congestion pricing, road diets, Traffic Demand Management, and just as important multi modal share development especially as co-products in multi-modal corridors like El Camino. Multi modal development on the El Camino could fund a Next bus advisory system, to take the guesswork out of using a bus, presently available in many jurisdictions, and a north south bicycle signage system for surrounding streets.
50% of the bill goes toward stormwater management. Certain traffic calming measures, it turns out, can not only make streets more ped-friendly, but also help make the city's rivers clean enough to swim in. C/CAG approved the contract with Nevue Ngan to prepare a guidance manual for designing "green streets". The guidance manual will be completed by July and contain four conceptual designs for small projects from a $900,000/- grant.
Finally there is a good reason why stormwater mitigation is an unfunded mandate. Increasing driving through signal timing, and resurfacing, which fortunately Belmont has been most level headed about, has not worked to reduce congestion. Instead the magnitude and scope of problems we need to address are increased, which taxes city budgets. Our local news is filled with the inability of city government to fund basic needs like (fire) security, sewage, health, and schools. CCAG should put forward projects under this funding which reduce congestion and improve the environment in defense of residents who would be proud to call their city home in their golden years.
The analysis for this bill shows some of the serious environmental harm that comes from auto usage such as copper and mercury from break lines that gets into our water supply. We also know of many others such as cancer and asthma from emissions of 10 and 2.5 micron particles and that the latter has a three day 1500 mile lifetime and will not be required to be controlled until 2015. We also know that WHO recommends measurement and mitigation at 1.8 microns because “an increasing range of adverse health effects has been linked to air pollution, and at ever-lower concentrations” page 10. Moderate air pollution can trigger heart attacks during exercise. Our kids suffer permanent lung damage within 500 feet of a major roadway. Tire dust is another carcinogen that is difficult to control as the number of vehicles increase which both MTC and ABAG acknowledge. Unlivable cities for our parents and children are such a big problem, that after obsessing all our lives over the cities we love to the point of straining our families, we can't wait to retire and get out of here.
At this point in our history a congestion management program to reduce the environmental impact of driving should reduce driving. The spending goals of this bill are misdirected toward increasing driving. A $4 fee increase is inadequate for reducing congestion through cost. Studies show that despite the recent dramatic increases in gas prices people continue to drive primarily because they feel they have no choice. Thus $4/- is not an appropriate user fees to increase cost sufficient to mitigate the impact of driving on the environment. While this fee shows some minor benefits for users, like higher speeds, it does not address the larger public which has to drink the water and breathe the air and whose children could get run over because of an inability to address congestion at its source.
25% of the total funds collected by this bill are distributed directly to the 21 jurisdictions for congestion related programs and projects such as signal timing, resurfacing, and swales. Signal timing comes under the category of intelligent transportation systems and we have already seen CCAG allocate $10M to this category to retime and control local signals so that traffic on 101 can use local streets to get to El Camino from upto 15 miles prior to a crash. Which we have already said is a problem because the traffic on El Camino should enhance the business district not be cut through traffic that hinders business by making the area polluted noisy and dangerous. Another 25% of the total fund is reserved for countywide projects such as the hydrogen stations which fortunately PG&E, following the electric car debacle, realizes is another boondoggle and has refused to support this $20M wasted program. Hydrogen like BART, Peninsula cities have found, is an illusion which aids driving by consuming huge pots of money that could go toward realistic solutions like hybrid ZEB buses. The funding also involves countywide traffic management systems currently under consideration by the C/CAG technical committees which also fit under ITS to increase driving.
There are many realistic programs that have been shown to work in reducing driving such as traffic calming, parking charges, congestion pricing, road diets, Traffic Demand Management, and just as important multi modal share development especially as co-products in multi-modal corridors like El Camino. Multi modal development on the El Camino could fund a Next bus advisory system, to take the guesswork out of using a bus, presently available in many jurisdictions, and a north south bicycle signage system for surrounding streets.
50% of the bill goes toward stormwater management. Certain traffic calming measures, it turns out, can not only make streets more ped-friendly, but also help make the city's rivers clean enough to swim in. C/CAG approved the contract with Nevue Ngan to prepare a guidance manual for designing "green streets". The guidance manual will be completed by July and contain four conceptual designs for small projects from a $900,000/- grant.
Finally there is a good reason why stormwater mitigation is an unfunded mandate. Increasing driving through signal timing, and resurfacing, which fortunately Belmont has been most level headed about, has not worked to reduce congestion. Instead the magnitude and scope of problems we need to address are increased, which taxes city budgets. Our local news is filled with the inability of city government to fund basic needs like (fire) security, sewage, health, and schools. CCAG should put forward projects under this funding which reduce congestion and improve the environment in defense of residents who would be proud to call their city home in their golden years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
