"Doorknob to desk."
I’ve been using the term for years, but what does it mean, really? The simple answer is that it measures my travel time, my commute, from the time I leave my house to the time I reach my desk, ready to do work. It’s what’s implied that makes it less simple. By employing this obvious simplicity, I reduce all the variables concerning travel time of one’s method of travel to a single integer.
Going by car? You had to scrape the frost off the window, shovel the driveway, stop for gas, find a parking space, and walk from that spot to your place of employment. Going by bus? You had walking time to get to the stop, some minutes to wait for it to arrive, perhaps make a transfer with its own travel and wait. Going by bike? Fill tires and secure load before getting underway, then lockup and maybe a quick wipedown or change of clothes upon arrival.
What it also accomplishes is to eliminate bias. As a transit rider, car commuters routinely ask, “How long does it take you to get here by bus?” Implied in that question lies a bias that travel time is of utmost importance. I want to respond with a question of my own, “Why would that matter?” But I reply with a simple question: "Of course going by car might take less time, but it also costs me $14/day to park, and I have better things to do with a couple hundred a month. What do you value?"
In offering an integer for my travel time by bus or bike, I often get the reply, “Ha! I can get here in only 20 minutes!” In so doing, they measure a best case scenario, and then only the time from the moment a tire hits a road to the time they pull into the parking lot, as if all that other stuff on both ends doesn’t count. But it does. Worse, the majority of people I’ve conversed with, hundreds over 20+ years, employ a best-case scenario that involves no traffic lights, no traffic, and traveling 10 mph over the speed limit.
Doorknob to desk, at or below the speed limit, with car prep, fueling, scraping, shoveling, and parking issues included, levels the playing field, making those travel times comparable.
What D-to-D does not do is attempt to compare the subjective values of differing travel modes. A transit user can take a nap, but a driver and cyclist cannot. A transit rider can skip the snow shovel, read a book, send a text, and get work done on the way, something a motorist cannot do. A bicyclist is getting a workout and pays no travel cost, but is subjected to the elements. A motorist has great comfort, but at an order of magnitude greater cost. Being subjective, each person will value all these differently, and that’s fine.
This one measure, though, merely reduces travel time to a single value. Do with it what you will. I no longer value the shortest travel time as important. For me, cost is a big factor, so is personal health. Changing my mind on these has let me look at life differently from when I was one of those maniacs behind the wheel. It’s only a number, but you have to start somewhere.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
H.C. Frick never foresaw this
I work in Henry Clay Frick's building in downtown Pittsburgh. The first Friday of every summer month, the Frick Art & Historical Society holds a(n essentially) free concert on the lawn of Clayton, Frick's mansion. Tonight, I traveled from one to the other, effectively replicating old man Frick's commute home. I bet he never figured to make the trip the way I did.
We would have started the same way. Here is the view from the elevator: Henry Clay Frick's office door, now the door to the company mail room, supply closet, and kitchenette.
I took the elevator down from 20 and walked out onto Fifth Avenue, just like he did. I then walked over to the Liberty/Smithfield parking garage, where I had the bicycle tied up, and rode over to Grant Street, by U.S. Steel Tower. In fewer than five minutes, the bike and I were on an articulated bus, an express trip out the East Busway. In 15 minutes, I was off the bus at Homewood Avenue, unmounted the bike from the bus rack, and descended the steps. Clayton is a mere three blocks from the busway station. In just a couple of minutes on the bike, I was here:
South view of Clayton, the H.C. Frick mansion, during The Bobs' concert, Aug 3 2012.
The trip from desk to (essentially) doorknob took only 38 minutes. I am guessing Frick himself never made it that quickly, and I wasn't even hurrying. In fact, I waited out lights at Wm Penn Way, Grant Street, and Penn Avenue, though I got the light at Thomas Boulevard green.
The truth be told, though, I don't know how Frick commuted. Possibly he had a driver to carry him back and forth on city streets. Maybe he used the trolley; I doubt it. For all I know, he had a private streetcar. I'm pretty sure he didn't do it by horse or bicycle, though he may have been able to drive it himself. He died in 1919. To this day there is a museum of antique cars on the Clayton grounds, worthy of a look to see how the upper-crust of Pittsburgh society got around 100 years ago.
Endnotes
Here are a couple of links about Frick:
We would have started the same way. Here is the view from the elevator: Henry Clay Frick's office door, now the door to the company mail room, supply closet, and kitchenette.
I took the elevator down from 20 and walked out onto Fifth Avenue, just like he did. I then walked over to the Liberty/Smithfield parking garage, where I had the bicycle tied up, and rode over to Grant Street, by U.S. Steel Tower. In fewer than five minutes, the bike and I were on an articulated bus, an express trip out the East Busway. In 15 minutes, I was off the bus at Homewood Avenue, unmounted the bike from the bus rack, and descended the steps. Clayton is a mere three blocks from the busway station. In just a couple of minutes on the bike, I was here:South view of Clayton, the H.C. Frick mansion, during The Bobs' concert, Aug 3 2012.
The trip from desk to (essentially) doorknob took only 38 minutes. I am guessing Frick himself never made it that quickly, and I wasn't even hurrying. In fact, I waited out lights at Wm Penn Way, Grant Street, and Penn Avenue, though I got the light at Thomas Boulevard green.
The truth be told, though, I don't know how Frick commuted. Possibly he had a driver to carry him back and forth on city streets. Maybe he used the trolley; I doubt it. For all I know, he had a private streetcar. I'm pretty sure he didn't do it by horse or bicycle, though he may have been able to drive it himself. He died in 1919. To this day there is a museum of antique cars on the Clayton grounds, worthy of a look to see how the upper-crust of Pittsburgh society got around 100 years ago.
Endnotes
Here are a couple of links about Frick:
Sunday, July 15, 2012
My July 13 2012 bike crash
On July 13, I had my first bike wreck in quite a while. I do fall off or fall over from time to time, but not such that I get hurt. This time, I polished quite a bit of skin, though as far as I can tell, I didn't break anything. (Of course, I will never know that, since I am not going to get my hand X-rayed since I have no health insurance. But that's a rant for a different day.) All I care to do here is diagnose how this happened, and work through what it might mean.
The bike and I are both fine. Within a couple minutes of going sideways, I got back on it and rode the rest of the way home. The handlebar tape on the right side is chewed up a bit, and there's a scuff on the rear derailleur I don't remember seeing before. But it shifts, all the pieces are there, all the cables work, the wheel is not bent, and nothing was broken, as far as I can tell. I landed just about flat, on my hands, shoulder and especially chin. Minor tear on the left shoulder of my shirt; the right knee of my pants has a significant stain from whatever I landed on, plus a drop or two of blood from within. My right hand has a sizable gash, but does not hurt. My right thumb got enough skin chewed off to make it difficult to type and, um, take care of certain bodily functions. But I'll manage. The abrasion on my chin did not bleed all that much, mainly seepage from serous fluid. Even the laptop I had slung over my shoulder was undamaged.
Now 36 hours post-crash, pretty much everything is back to normal. I took a shower, put a bandage on my chin, and went about my evening as if nothing happened. About an hour after the incident, I was bouncing on a neighbor's trampoline while taking care of her dogs, and an hour after that, had to retrieve something from inside a dumpster. (We had a carful of newspapers to recycle, and in tossing the papers in, also tossed in a car part, so had to climb in to retrieve it.) I drove the car 20 miles just after this. Other than being hard to grasp anything with my left thumb, I seem to be in good working order.
OK, so what happened?
The short version is that a car passed me too closely. While it did not hit me, it passed closely enough that the air wave pushed me into a six-inch curb at a 30-degree angle, the bike went out from under me, and I went down. I never saw the car, though in the couple of milliseconds between when I realized I was off course and when I hit the curb, I registered that it might have been grey. There was barely time to realize I was off course, let alone correct that course, or glance up to catch a license plate, maybe nine-tenths of a second from air wave to curb. The car passed me with maybe 12 to 15 inches of clearance, instead of the required four feet.
Last week, I took a picture of a drain grate less than 100 yards from this spot, noting that there was a slot on the side of that grate wide enough to grab a narrow road tire. With that squarely in mind, I know that when I crossed that grate, I was squarely in the middle of it. The car passed me less than five seconds after that. But since I know my exact coordinates to the inch at that spot, I know that I was exactly where the law suggests I be when riding on the road: As far to the right as practicable. Any farther right, I would have been right on top of the curb. Any farther left, I would have been lined up with that open slot.
In general there is no reason to take the lane here. In retrospect, though, maybe I should start doing that, but to do so invites other problems, specifically forcing drivers to slow to my speed far more often than they now do. I'm not sure anyone is ready for that quite yet.
Moving on to possible motives on the part of the driver. I find it hard to believe s/he did not see me. It was 6:40 p.m.; sunset would not occur for another two hours. The sun would have been well to the left. The road at that spot points straight north. I had a light colored shirt on, though not my orange vest. I can only think of three possibilities: (a) There were two cars at that point, one in each northbound lane, and the driver in my lane chose not to slow to get around me. (b) The driver was occupied with a cell phone or changing a CD or some other distraction, and did not realize I was there. (c) The driver intentionally tried to pass me too closely. Had there been a shoulder, I would have merely veered off course and back on, but once I hit the curb, there was nowhere else to go but down. No, the driver did not stop. In cases (b) and (c), I would not expect the driver to stop. I went over so fast, I likely disappeared from view. In case (a), perhaps the driver thought I turned onto Manor Road, mere feet from where I went over.
So all this comes down to two things: First, driver inattentiveness (or worse). Second, road design. Why does Perry Highway have a curb? Is that really necessary? And why six inches? Also, why does Perry Highway have four lanes? It is posted 35 mph, but a significant portion of it beginning less than a mile south of this is only two lanes at the same speed limit. Being four lanes here allows drivers to exceed 35 more easily. The curb lane might go 35, but traffic speed in the inner lane is more typically 40 to 45, often higher.
This incident occurred less than 1/4 mile from my house, within easy sight of where I caught my inbound Perry Highway bus every day for close to 20 years. I am well acquainted with this piece of road. I've driven it thousands of times, bicycled it hundreds of times, and walked it hundreds of times, in the 21 years I've lived here.
On this particular trip, I had just bicycled four miles from the Perrysville Avenue park-and-ride lot, as I had just missed my McKnight bus, and did not want to wait 20 minutes for the next one. I guessed correctly when leaving my desk that I would be home by 6:45, and even with the tumble, walked in the door when I thought I would, thus proving that the O1 flyer and a bike ride was just as fast as a 20-minute wait for the O12 Flyer that would have gotten me four miles closer.
All of this leads me to make one conclusion: If we are ever to use anything but the car to get around, we need to change the whole concept of how we get around. Eliminate the curb lane on Perry as a driving lane; go back to it being a two-lane road. But leave the curb lane there, only mark it as a bike and pedestrian lane. Note that there is no sidewalk along here, either.
"Anything but the car" means that in order to make it possible to use anything but the car to get around, we need to change fundamental road design, and that means fundamental change in the concept of how we get around at all. Some of this is chicken, some of it egg, but the first thing that has to happen is changing demand. That means get on your bikes and ride, and stop driving cars.
Yes, even in the suburbs.
Monday, June 11, 2012
My comments on the P-G article on the June 8 transit protest
I posted a long comment on this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/transportation/protesters-arrested-at-transit-cut-rally-639581/
The comments had less to do with the protest, and more with Port Authority's long-standing funding issues. With only minor corrections, here is my post.
This is long: ~730 words, excluding this line. So, you can TL;DR it, or actually learn something. Your call.
I have read the article and all 14 comments so far. I see two patterns: One, a set of people who repeat the oft-repeated mantras of PAT mismanagement and union greediness. I can hardly blame them. There is a grain of truth therein, but they are only two factors in a hugely complex equation. The second pattern comes from people who have gotten very closely involved in the situation over the years (I've been in it over 20), and know how complex this equation is. What one commenter said is true: PAT did some serious house-cleaning, and a complete rearrangement of the routing system to make it more cost-effective, an exact response to the demands in the 2005 funding fight, and implemented in Act 44 of 2007. Look at the numbers: Ridership rose 6% despite a 15% service cut. Thus, if all you have to say is to complain about unions and mismanagement, you lose much credibility for any other point you try to make.
While it's true the city has half the population it had 50 years ago (2010=305K, 1960=604K), the county has changed considerably less in comparison (2010=1.2M, 1960=1.6M its peak). The real interesting comparison is to 1930, when all public transit was provided by private, tax-paying companies. County population was much the same, but far more lived in the city itself (city=670K, county 1.37M). The population in these outer areas was in dense communities with their own, smaller, privately run transit systems, which became part of PAT when it was formed. The problem came after suburban sprawl began after WW2, and continues to this day. If PAT made any truly bad decisions, it was to try to serve these sprawly outer areas. People became too spread out to make transit cost-effective, but had enough clout to demand the areas be served, so they got the service, and simply expected the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
If you live in a house built since 1950 or so, on a street that was built since 1950 or so, YOU are the problem. Since you moved 15 to 30 miles out, instead of staying in the city where your (great-)grandparents lived, you are expecting the taxpayer to fund the cost of both transit *and* all those wide, suburban thoroughfares for your cars to travel on. The state cannot afford to fix roads and bridges OR fund transit. Something has to give, and really both are (raising taxes to fix roads is a different argument, though intimately related), but transit is getting the headlines.
What's getting cut now? These outer areas, mainly, though inner ones like Troy Hill and Mount Washington are getting caught in the same net. The bigger problem is that it costs lots more per person to serve the outer areas, much more than can be recovered through fares. While that's where a lot of the people are, the jobs are Downtown. Those jobs provide the income for the people paying the bulk of the STATE's income tax revenue. So it truly is in the state's interest to help underwrite the cost of public transit. But will Governor Corbett and the GOP-led House and Senate do that? I'm guessing no; they're slaves to Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes, and Rush Limbaugh. It won't happen. We're screwed.
Move the jobs from Downtown to the suburbs? That will be an option for some employers, but it causes more problems than it solves. Sure, you can commute from Port Vue to Cranberry, Kennedy to Monroeville, Aspinwall to Southpointe, when your employer moves operations there, but who would want to? And all the resulting traffic from everyone else doing the same thing? No, losing transit service is only the headline grabber of the moment. The real problem will be when decisions are made *because* the buses are cut. People will move. Employers will leave metro Pittsburgh altogether. And surely, any national company looking to set up shop will simply cross Pittsburgh off the list of places to even think about.
Would you like a proposed solution? How about this? It would surely help if the "non-profits" chipped in. UPMC has 54,000 employees. If it just out-and-out paid $1K apiece for an annual bus pass for each of them, that's $54M of PAT's $64M deficit. Play with the numbers, get buy-in from other companies to do something similar, and you've solved the deficit problem without touching taxes. I'm waiting to hear a concrete suggestion from anyone else.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/transportation/protesters-arrested-at-transit-cut-rally-639581/
The comments had less to do with the protest, and more with Port Authority's long-standing funding issues. With only minor corrections, here is my post.
*
This is long: ~730 words, excluding this line. So, you can TL;DR it, or actually learn something. Your call.
I have read the article and all 14 comments so far. I see two patterns: One, a set of people who repeat the oft-repeated mantras of PAT mismanagement and union greediness. I can hardly blame them. There is a grain of truth therein, but they are only two factors in a hugely complex equation. The second pattern comes from people who have gotten very closely involved in the situation over the years (I've been in it over 20), and know how complex this equation is. What one commenter said is true: PAT did some serious house-cleaning, and a complete rearrangement of the routing system to make it more cost-effective, an exact response to the demands in the 2005 funding fight, and implemented in Act 44 of 2007. Look at the numbers: Ridership rose 6% despite a 15% service cut. Thus, if all you have to say is to complain about unions and mismanagement, you lose much credibility for any other point you try to make.
While it's true the city has half the population it had 50 years ago (2010=305K, 1960=604K), the county has changed considerably less in comparison (2010=1.2M, 1960=1.6M its peak). The real interesting comparison is to 1930, when all public transit was provided by private, tax-paying companies. County population was much the same, but far more lived in the city itself (city=670K, county 1.37M). The population in these outer areas was in dense communities with their own, smaller, privately run transit systems, which became part of PAT when it was formed. The problem came after suburban sprawl began after WW2, and continues to this day. If PAT made any truly bad decisions, it was to try to serve these sprawly outer areas. People became too spread out to make transit cost-effective, but had enough clout to demand the areas be served, so they got the service, and simply expected the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
If you live in a house built since 1950 or so, on a street that was built since 1950 or so, YOU are the problem. Since you moved 15 to 30 miles out, instead of staying in the city where your (great-)grandparents lived, you are expecting the taxpayer to fund the cost of both transit *and* all those wide, suburban thoroughfares for your cars to travel on. The state cannot afford to fix roads and bridges OR fund transit. Something has to give, and really both are (raising taxes to fix roads is a different argument, though intimately related), but transit is getting the headlines.
What's getting cut now? These outer areas, mainly, though inner ones like Troy Hill and Mount Washington are getting caught in the same net. The bigger problem is that it costs lots more per person to serve the outer areas, much more than can be recovered through fares. While that's where a lot of the people are, the jobs are Downtown. Those jobs provide the income for the people paying the bulk of the STATE's income tax revenue. So it truly is in the state's interest to help underwrite the cost of public transit. But will Governor Corbett and the GOP-led House and Senate do that? I'm guessing no; they're slaves to Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes, and Rush Limbaugh. It won't happen. We're screwed.
Move the jobs from Downtown to the suburbs? That will be an option for some employers, but it causes more problems than it solves. Sure, you can commute from Port Vue to Cranberry, Kennedy to Monroeville, Aspinwall to Southpointe, when your employer moves operations there, but who would want to? And all the resulting traffic from everyone else doing the same thing? No, losing transit service is only the headline grabber of the moment. The real problem will be when decisions are made *because* the buses are cut. People will move. Employers will leave metro Pittsburgh altogether. And surely, any national company looking to set up shop will simply cross Pittsburgh off the list of places to even think about.
Would you like a proposed solution? How about this? It would surely help if the "non-profits" chipped in. UPMC has 54,000 employees. If it just out-and-out paid $1K apiece for an annual bus pass for each of them, that's $54M of PAT's $64M deficit. Play with the numbers, get buy-in from other companies to do something similar, and you've solved the deficit problem without touching taxes. I'm waiting to hear a concrete suggestion from anyone else.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Musings upon my daughter's graduation
Eight hours ago, I was sitting in a football stadium, watching as my little girl, my youngest child, graduated from high school. In three short months, she will be off to college and starting life. But that is a blog post for another day. Right now is to reflect on how she got here.
North Allegheny is a huge suburban school district, with over 8,000 students. Maybe a sub-title for this post might be "Never anything but the car," as that aptly describes how NA works. Every child, every time he or she goes to school, every time a parent needs to visit the school, a car (or school bus) is involved. With almost no exceptions, nobody walks to school. Even those living in houses bordering a school's property are carted to school on four (or six) wheels. No sidewalks, no trail system, no bicycles, no bike racks, no public transit of any sort. It's all done by cars and school buses.
Whatever. It works. Six hundred forty-five graduates. Of them, 158 have grade point averages of 4.0 or better, and it's not grade inflation. These kids are well educated. My own daughter pulled a 3.8 GPA for third-tier, mere "with honors". These are the kids who got 600 on each section of the SAT -- when they took it in seventh grade as a placement test for some other program. This is the school district whose marching band is so good, it played in President Obama's inauguration parade, the only one in Pennsylvania to do so. Night after night for years, we "parental units" were called upon for homework help, and the resources I drew upon to provide that assistance were more what I learned in college than high school.
I look at my daughter and think, "What did we do right?" and the answer is, a lot of things, starting at birth, but even that is not the whole story. It's the district, and the ability for the automobile to provide the backbone of support, from kids who oversleep the alarm clock, to needing to be shuttled home after school, or carting an art project or large musical instrument to and from, to getting kids to another one's house for a study session. It also does not hurt that everyone in this district is well paid, lives in a huge house, and owns three cars apiece.
Nearly every child drives by 17. The district has two high schools, one for 9th and 10th grades, and another for 11th and 12, and the junior high has about 30 designated parking spaces for student parking. Yes, enough 10th graders apparently need to drive to school rather than take the school bus that got them to the same school the prior year, that space is provided for them. That is how embedded the car is in the North Allegheny culture.
I can only wonder if we've reached a peak of sorts. What will happen to this district when it no longer becomes feasible for each family to keep three cars on the road? Are we there already? I don't have to think too hard to come up with a smattering of families who have moved, houses foreclosed upon, or a parent left to take a job after a long period of unemployment. Even in my own case, I muddled through a few years of austere existence, pretty much unable to do little more than provide food, housing and heat, and that only because I had only one car and no car payment. If I had had to replace a car six years ago, I don't know how I would have continued to live here. You have to be rich to live in North Allegheny. I honestly don't know how everyone else manages.
Well, we will see what happens when the frog boils. I've been saying for a while that life will change, big time, when daily use of a car becomes unsupportable. The effects will be felt in areas like this much sooner than in walkable areas. It will be less a matter of "how do we make do with only one car?" and more "why would anyone want to live out here if a car is so necessary?" And when those choices are made on a large scale, the people who have said means will choose not to live here but somewhere else instead, and leave NA for those who have no other choice but to live "out here". This might be a generation away, maybe only 10 years. Thus, I write this down so as to take a snapshot, to preserve a glimpse of how good it was, and how good my daughter had it, when it all still worked.
North Allegheny is a huge suburban school district, with over 8,000 students. Maybe a sub-title for this post might be "Never anything but the car," as that aptly describes how NA works. Every child, every time he or she goes to school, every time a parent needs to visit the school, a car (or school bus) is involved. With almost no exceptions, nobody walks to school. Even those living in houses bordering a school's property are carted to school on four (or six) wheels. No sidewalks, no trail system, no bicycles, no bike racks, no public transit of any sort. It's all done by cars and school buses.
Whatever. It works. Six hundred forty-five graduates. Of them, 158 have grade point averages of 4.0 or better, and it's not grade inflation. These kids are well educated. My own daughter pulled a 3.8 GPA for third-tier, mere "with honors". These are the kids who got 600 on each section of the SAT -- when they took it in seventh grade as a placement test for some other program. This is the school district whose marching band is so good, it played in President Obama's inauguration parade, the only one in Pennsylvania to do so. Night after night for years, we "parental units" were called upon for homework help, and the resources I drew upon to provide that assistance were more what I learned in college than high school.
I look at my daughter and think, "What did we do right?" and the answer is, a lot of things, starting at birth, but even that is not the whole story. It's the district, and the ability for the automobile to provide the backbone of support, from kids who oversleep the alarm clock, to needing to be shuttled home after school, or carting an art project or large musical instrument to and from, to getting kids to another one's house for a study session. It also does not hurt that everyone in this district is well paid, lives in a huge house, and owns three cars apiece.
Nearly every child drives by 17. The district has two high schools, one for 9th and 10th grades, and another for 11th and 12, and the junior high has about 30 designated parking spaces for student parking. Yes, enough 10th graders apparently need to drive to school rather than take the school bus that got them to the same school the prior year, that space is provided for them. That is how embedded the car is in the North Allegheny culture.
I can only wonder if we've reached a peak of sorts. What will happen to this district when it no longer becomes feasible for each family to keep three cars on the road? Are we there already? I don't have to think too hard to come up with a smattering of families who have moved, houses foreclosed upon, or a parent left to take a job after a long period of unemployment. Even in my own case, I muddled through a few years of austere existence, pretty much unable to do little more than provide food, housing and heat, and that only because I had only one car and no car payment. If I had had to replace a car six years ago, I don't know how I would have continued to live here. You have to be rich to live in North Allegheny. I honestly don't know how everyone else manages.
Well, we will see what happens when the frog boils. I've been saying for a while that life will change, big time, when daily use of a car becomes unsupportable. The effects will be felt in areas like this much sooner than in walkable areas. It will be less a matter of "how do we make do with only one car?" and more "why would anyone want to live out here if a car is so necessary?" And when those choices are made on a large scale, the people who have said means will choose not to live here but somewhere else instead, and leave NA for those who have no other choice but to live "out here". This might be a generation away, maybe only 10 years. Thus, I write this down so as to take a snapshot, to preserve a glimpse of how good it was, and how good my daughter had it, when it all still worked.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Multi-modal commuting: Getting the motorcycle inspected
I truly use anything but a car to get around. I have not entirely rid myself of the four-wheeled beast, but I use it as little as possible. Feet, bike, bus, motorcycle -- all of these get me where I'm going, with little to zero help from automobiles.
As an example of how I put this to use, allow me to illustrate the process of getting my motorcycle inspected. It took a bit of planning and a bit of bus fare, but I was able to get the motorcycle to an inspection station, and pick it up from it, without needing to be driven or dropped off, and without unnecessary delays (such as having to walk six miles home or anything like that).
On Friday, I called the inspection shop and arranged to have it inspected on Monday. The problem here is that it is not possible to walk out of the shop and catch a bus into town. Crossing the street is somewhere between impossible and suicidal. You just don't. Nor is there any close bus stop by walking up or down the street. Nor is the bus service there all that great.
Solution! Use a bicycle! Of course, sure, ride the motorcycle TO the shop, and ride a bicycle FROM the shop. OK, fine, how do you get the bicycle TO the shop without using a car, or getting a ride, or walking six miles, or being stranded? One word: Planning.
This was the plan: Saturday, I planned to go on a bike ride in the city. I would ride the bicycle to the bike ride, ride the ride, then ride the bicycle to the motorcycle shop. There I would tie it to a post, and catch a bus home. This actually worked pretty well. Monday, I motorcycled to the shop, dropped it off, hopped on the bicycle, and biked the rest of the way into work. No bus fare necessary.
The motorcycle was inspected, and ready for me to pick up whenever. Note that I did not have to wait hours in a waiting area to get the work done. However, the shop closed before I was able to get it Monday, necessitating biking home. Tuesday, I used a bus to get close to the shop, and walked the rest of the way. This was not all that easy, as there was still a quarter-mile hike from the nearest feasible bus stop to the inspection shop. Nor was it all that pleasant of a walk, as oncoming traffic sped by at 50+ mph, and a parked pickup truck (a man working on a billboard) blocked the shoulder, forcing me into the driving lane, but I managed to live through it.
Once I got the motorcycle, I could then drive it the rest of the way to work.
Thus:
* No extra trips
* No use of a car, ever
* No having to wait anywhere, except small amounts to catch a bus
* I got some exercise
* I was able to work in the drop-off and pick-up along with my regular movements
* I was able to do all the logistics myself, not relying on anyone to help me
Net effect, some simple planning, use of a bicycle, multi-modal travel, and thinking outside the box, allowed me to avoid use of a car where a car and additional help would have been what anyone else would have arranged.
As an example of how I put this to use, allow me to illustrate the process of getting my motorcycle inspected. It took a bit of planning and a bit of bus fare, but I was able to get the motorcycle to an inspection station, and pick it up from it, without needing to be driven or dropped off, and without unnecessary delays (such as having to walk six miles home or anything like that).
On Friday, I called the inspection shop and arranged to have it inspected on Monday. The problem here is that it is not possible to walk out of the shop and catch a bus into town. Crossing the street is somewhere between impossible and suicidal. You just don't. Nor is there any close bus stop by walking up or down the street. Nor is the bus service there all that great.
Solution! Use a bicycle! Of course, sure, ride the motorcycle TO the shop, and ride a bicycle FROM the shop. OK, fine, how do you get the bicycle TO the shop without using a car, or getting a ride, or walking six miles, or being stranded? One word: Planning.
This was the plan: Saturday, I planned to go on a bike ride in the city. I would ride the bicycle to the bike ride, ride the ride, then ride the bicycle to the motorcycle shop. There I would tie it to a post, and catch a bus home. This actually worked pretty well. Monday, I motorcycled to the shop, dropped it off, hopped on the bicycle, and biked the rest of the way into work. No bus fare necessary.
The motorcycle was inspected, and ready for me to pick up whenever. Note that I did not have to wait hours in a waiting area to get the work done. However, the shop closed before I was able to get it Monday, necessitating biking home. Tuesday, I used a bus to get close to the shop, and walked the rest of the way. This was not all that easy, as there was still a quarter-mile hike from the nearest feasible bus stop to the inspection shop. Nor was it all that pleasant of a walk, as oncoming traffic sped by at 50+ mph, and a parked pickup truck (a man working on a billboard) blocked the shoulder, forcing me into the driving lane, but I managed to live through it.
Once I got the motorcycle, I could then drive it the rest of the way to work.
Thus:
* No extra trips
* No use of a car, ever
* No having to wait anywhere, except small amounts to catch a bus
* I got some exercise
* I was able to work in the drop-off and pick-up along with my regular movements
* I was able to do all the logistics myself, not relying on anyone to help me
Net effect, some simple planning, use of a bicycle, multi-modal travel, and thinking outside the box, allowed me to avoid use of a car where a car and additional help would have been what anyone else would have arranged.
Friday, April 20, 2012
On the new 4-foot bicycle passing law
A few weeks ago, a new state law, HB170, took effect requiring Pennsylvania motorists to allow four feet of room when passing a bicyclist on a roadway. This was met with a large amount of negativity towards bicyclists, from calls to ban them from streets, to outright threats to mow them down. Indeed, we do have police record of one such case of a motorist repeatedly attempting to run down a cyclist on a Pittsburgh city street. Clearly this is a serious matter.
Let us please dispel the hostility. First and foremost, this is about public safety, the ability for all of us to get from A to B, and arriving at B in the same condition as when having left A. I know too many people, several of them personally, who suffered serious injury or were killed, for simply going about their business while on two wheels, following all the rules. Twenty Pennsylvania cyclists died in 2010 after being hit by cars. This law was needed. It was not developed in a vacuum.
Let us please agree on what this law is not about. We are not talking about cyclists who do not obey the rules. We are not talking about cyclists who endanger other users of the roads, be they pedestrians, motorists, or other cyclists. We are not talking about those who blow through red lights and stop signs without a thought or look. A good many of us do follow the rules. Please allow us the respect we deserve, and let law enforcement deal with the rest appropriately.
Note as well that a lot more of us are cycling. Maybe it's the better weather, maybe it's the better economy, maybe it's $4 gas, maybe it's fewer and farther between buses, but a lot more people are on two wheels than there used to be. Really this is a good thing. They're doing you a favor! Every bike you see means one more parking spot available, one less car squeezing into a tunnel, and that much less demand for gasoline to drive your cost that much higher, sooner.
We cyclists do not want to cause you distress any more than we want to be injured. We would all be very happy to let you get by and go on your way, but it would help for you to understand what we are dealing with. The law says, and said already, that cyclists have to stay as far to the right as practicable, but this is subjective. The law also says, and said already, that we do have the right to use the road, and to take the full lane whenever necessary. You may not see the pothole, the pile of loose gravel, the tree branch, the dead raccoon, or the drain grate that can swallow our tires whole, but we can. We may also size up the upcoming curve and decide it is not safe for you even to try passing us, and make that choice for you. Getting in the left half of the lane is our prerogative, and necessary for our own safety. Whether you agree with it or not, you have to accept that, and respect our choices.
A second item you may not be aware of is doors. Many cyclists have been killed or injured because of plowing into a just-opened door of a parked car, or, in trying to avoid them, swerving into the path of a vehicle moving faster. Since parked cars are a hazard for bikes, we get left and take the lane, or should. In a narrow street with a lot of parked cars, as a motorist, you should anticipate this. If you are a cyclist, insist on it. Get left. Take the lane. They can have it when you're done with it, but right now, it's yours, and they are just going to have to wait. Motorists, there is no way to sugarcoat this. Accept it, get used to it, and stop complaining.
In slowing you down for all of five seconds, I appeal to your sense of fairness. The postal worker drives a little delivery truck, the garbage collector drives a big one. While making their rounds, you have to slow for a few seconds, and then get around them. You do not question the need for this. All we are asking is that you give us the same respect you give them.
One reason we do have so many cars is because this law did not already exist. We cyclists hear it all the time: More people would bicycle, if it were not so dangerous. It is dangerous, or is perceived to be, because of the absence of this law. I am 53, but have been riding on the road since I was 6. Your small child should be able to to ride on the road with a level of safety equal to that of an adult. This law seeks to eliminate that fear, at least so other adults can feel empowered to at least try using a bicycle from time to time.
Allow me to address some of the common opposition to the new rule.
To reiterate: This is about people, not bicycles. People, and keeping them safe. That is far more important than a moment's inconvenience. Please, let's just get along.
Let us please dispel the hostility. First and foremost, this is about public safety, the ability for all of us to get from A to B, and arriving at B in the same condition as when having left A. I know too many people, several of them personally, who suffered serious injury or were killed, for simply going about their business while on two wheels, following all the rules. Twenty Pennsylvania cyclists died in 2010 after being hit by cars. This law was needed. It was not developed in a vacuum.
Let us please agree on what this law is not about. We are not talking about cyclists who do not obey the rules. We are not talking about cyclists who endanger other users of the roads, be they pedestrians, motorists, or other cyclists. We are not talking about those who blow through red lights and stop signs without a thought or look. A good many of us do follow the rules. Please allow us the respect we deserve, and let law enforcement deal with the rest appropriately.
Note as well that a lot more of us are cycling. Maybe it's the better weather, maybe it's the better economy, maybe it's $4 gas, maybe it's fewer and farther between buses, but a lot more people are on two wheels than there used to be. Really this is a good thing. They're doing you a favor! Every bike you see means one more parking spot available, one less car squeezing into a tunnel, and that much less demand for gasoline to drive your cost that much higher, sooner.
We cyclists do not want to cause you distress any more than we want to be injured. We would all be very happy to let you get by and go on your way, but it would help for you to understand what we are dealing with. The law says, and said already, that cyclists have to stay as far to the right as practicable, but this is subjective. The law also says, and said already, that we do have the right to use the road, and to take the full lane whenever necessary. You may not see the pothole, the pile of loose gravel, the tree branch, the dead raccoon, or the drain grate that can swallow our tires whole, but we can. We may also size up the upcoming curve and decide it is not safe for you even to try passing us, and make that choice for you. Getting in the left half of the lane is our prerogative, and necessary for our own safety. Whether you agree with it or not, you have to accept that, and respect our choices.
A second item you may not be aware of is doors. Many cyclists have been killed or injured because of plowing into a just-opened door of a parked car, or, in trying to avoid them, swerving into the path of a vehicle moving faster. Since parked cars are a hazard for bikes, we get left and take the lane, or should. In a narrow street with a lot of parked cars, as a motorist, you should anticipate this. If you are a cyclist, insist on it. Get left. Take the lane. They can have it when you're done with it, but right now, it's yours, and they are just going to have to wait. Motorists, there is no way to sugarcoat this. Accept it, get used to it, and stop complaining.
In slowing you down for all of five seconds, I appeal to your sense of fairness. The postal worker drives a little delivery truck, the garbage collector drives a big one. While making their rounds, you have to slow for a few seconds, and then get around them. You do not question the need for this. All we are asking is that you give us the same respect you give them.
One reason we do have so many cars is because this law did not already exist. We cyclists hear it all the time: More people would bicycle, if it were not so dangerous. It is dangerous, or is perceived to be, because of the absence of this law. I am 53, but have been riding on the road since I was 6. Your small child should be able to to ride on the road with a level of safety equal to that of an adult. This law seeks to eliminate that fear, at least so other adults can feel empowered to at least try using a bicycle from time to time.
Allow me to address some of the common opposition to the new rule.
- Bicyclists do not pay for the roads, so should not be on them. Bicyclists are taxpayers, and taxes pay for the roads. At the local level -- boroughs, townships, cities and counties -- from paving to plowing to traffic lights, property taxes pay for most road maintenance. At the state and federal levels, there is a fuel tax that should pay for roads, but neither has been raised in years, it has never been indexed to inflation, and needs now far outstrip what those taxes bring in. You are not paying for the roads, either. Cars today also have better fuel economy than when these taxes were implemented, so we have more motorists using the roads, per fuel-tax dollar brought in. If motorists paid for the roads properly, we would likely be looking at a large increase in the gas tax. Taking some of the traffic off the roads lessens the need for taxes to be raised, to accommodate more cars, so each bike you see is actually saving you money.
- Bicycles should be restricted to trails and parks. Allow me to make a comparison here. Should cars be restricted to using only superhighways? We all share that "last mile", so we have to get along.
- Cyclists should have to be licensed and insured, and their vehicles registered. Anyplace this has been tried ends up costing government much more than any benefit obtained or savings gained. Also noteworthy is that the calls for this come from some of the same people who are arguing for smaller government with less interference in private matters.
To reiterate: This is about people, not bicycles. People, and keeping them safe. That is far more important than a moment's inconvenience. Please, let's just get along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)