Today's disconcerting news is that not only are the world's only wild populations of orangutans disappearing at an alarming rate (I mentioned this phenomenon briefly in an article I wrote for the current issue of LOUDmouth) no thanks to the global palm-oil industry, but also suddenly Americans who are "angry" over $4 gas are in favor of offshore drilling.
First, the orangutans. Of all the world problems we're creating and facing today, and although I am vegetarian, protecting animals hasn't been an issue that particularly resonates with me. (Hell, I haven't even gone to visit the pandas once the three years I've been in Chengdu.) But the orangutans get to me. Not the orangutans themselves, perhaps, but the scenario that led to this outcome: a huge worldwide demand for palm oil. Why? Palm oil was once touted as an environmentally friendly, do-good, alternative component of many daily-use products, ranging from cooking to hygiene and even to bio-fuel. The trees that produce palm are grown mainly in Indonesia and Malaysia. So, naturally, deforestation began because there was a resource that could be converted to cash when sold to the West. Unfortunately for the orangutans, that meant their natural habitat was being destroyed as quickly as loggers could cut down the trees. The AP article plays up the fact that environmental education needs to be put into place at the local level, which, sure, is true--but completely fails to mention any responsibility on the part of the consumers and the parties responsible for driving demand.
Second, the offshore drilling. Now, I don't know that much about the potential negative consequences of offshore drilling beyond the obvious, but a) I have to assume that there was a reason for the moratorium placed in 1981, so why is that reason suddenly now irrelevant because some Americans are angry over $4 gas; b) At the rate we're (the global we, with an especially long finger pointing at the U.S., who according to this article, uses a quarter of all the oil we consume) consuming oil, no matter how much we find, there will never be enough; and c) Who the hell do these people think they are?
The crux of the problem is that people can't seem to see past the end of the gas nozzle on this. As long as they can get in their cars and go where they want to go at the price they've been accustomed to paying for decades, they don't care. But as soon as it gets inconvenient, or more expensive, they're ready to go to the ends of the earth--places that were formerly forbidden--to search for more. This is no way to address the problem. Whether or not these new areas yield tons of oil, it's still a finite resource. Whether or not offshore drilling has disastrous consequences on the environment, it's not going to yield an eternal spring of oil that can keep the entire Western world and add a growing number of people in "developing nations" behind their steering wheels and living as decadently as Americans in the latter half of the 20th century. Times are changing, and it's time to get used to it.
Showing posts with label anti-car. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-car. Show all posts
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
a sad, scary, and infuriating article
A Quest for Energy in the Globe’s Remote Places
The New York Times reports on "energy companies ... going to the ends of the earth to find new supplies."
Among the choicest of quotes:
"And the politics of oil and gas are getting trickier, with producing countries demanding a bigger share of the revenue and growing angry about project delays that postpone their payments."
"'We’re facing bigger risks and bigger difficulties when we go into new frontier regions,' said Odd A. Mosbergvik, a senior manager at the dominant Norwegian energy company, StatoilHydro. 'But this is why the oil industry is for big boys. It’s a big gamble.'"
"There is plenty of oil and gas still in the ground, energy executives say. But global consumption is rising so fast that they must keep looking for new sources. Despite worldwide concern over global warming and the role of fossil fuels in causing it, United States government specialists project that global oil and gas demand will increase by some 50 percent in the next 25 years.
"At the same time, the big discoveries of the last three decades, like those in the North Sea and on the North Slope of Alaska, are drying up. ...
... And consumption is rising fast in the economically booming Asian countries."
"Hans M. Gjennestad, strategy manager at Statoil for the Barents region, said, 'We believe this resource potential may contribute significantly to the long-term security of supplies of Europe and the United States.'"
Yes, the big boys.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
bikes, cities, women--this sounds cool
a short, rushed post:
i just read this article on the bicycle-manufacturing industry catering more and more toward the urban biker who's wearing average clothes rather than spandex and cycling on city streets rather than up mountain roads. one company that's mentioned, Specialized, has designed six different bikes, each with a special characteristic that tailors it to the major U.S. city it's named after.
It also mentions downtown Los Angeles's very own Bicycle Kitchen, which I hadn't previously heard of. From a brief glimpse at their website, it looks like they're getting up to some exciting stuff.
It also mentions bicycle designer Sky Yaeger, who I'd not previously known about. The article credits her designs with being one of the most significant contributors to the urban bicycle trend. Nice!
i just read this article on the bicycle-manufacturing industry catering more and more toward the urban biker who's wearing average clothes rather than spandex and cycling on city streets rather than up mountain roads. one company that's mentioned, Specialized, has designed six different bikes, each with a special characteristic that tailors it to the major U.S. city it's named after.
It also mentions downtown Los Angeles's very own Bicycle Kitchen, which I hadn't previously heard of. From a brief glimpse at their website, it looks like they're getting up to some exciting stuff.
It also mentions bicycle designer Sky Yaeger, who I'd not previously known about. The article credits her designs with being one of the most significant contributors to the urban bicycle trend. Nice!
Saturday, September 22, 2007
World Carfree Day, 2007
Um, so somewhere between 100 and 108 of China's cities, including Chengdu, according to Shanghai-based Bloomberg.com reporter Irena Shen, are supposed to be participating in this event--but I didn't notice any decrease in the number of cars this afternoon while I rode my bike to work--or when I looked out the window at quarter past 6 p.m. Hmph.
Crappy China Daily article posted to Xinhua:
BEIJING, Sept. 22 -- Today's Car-Free Day is significant both for China and the rest of the world.
Crappy China Daily article posted to Xinhua:
BEIJING, Sept. 22 -- Today's Car-Free Day is significant both for China and the rest of the world.
It is the first time that 108 Chinese cities will take part in the annual global event, which dates back to the 1950s.
China is an important participant in the campaign. The country became the world's second-largest auto market and third-largest carmaker last year.
It has also become the second-largest greenhouse gas producer in the world, and is rapidly catching up with the United States, the largest emitter.
In this sense, China's participation will greatly strengthen the Car-Free Day movement.
For Chinese, owning a car is a dream that came true only very recently. Passion for car ownership is strong and is gaining momentum all the time. The number of cars on the roads is multiplying almost by the hour.
In Beijing, about 1,000 new cars are added to the streets on an average day. In Shanghai, 8,000 license plates were issued by auction this month. The average price of nearly 50,000 yuan for a plate indicates a fervent demand for cars.
Cars certainly offer motorists plenty of freedom to move around, especially those living in remote areas.
But in many Chinese cities, this convenience has quickly turned into a nightmare, as roads become increasingly gridlocked by the rising number of cars.
An aerial view of Shanghai's elevated highway during rush hour would often look like a gigantic parking lot.
The capital, Beijing, is sometimes referred to as "shoudu" - not the capital, but the nation's most congested city.
So what was designed to offer greater freedom of movement is now inhibiting people's ability to move about freely, instead creating road blocks that slow the movement of the urban population.
This must come as a great surprise to new car owners when they discover that their newfound freedom is in fact the opposite.
More importantly, this obsession with car ownership is unfair to the many people who continue to use urban public transport, which is now also becoming clogged by the increasing number of cars.
Even worse is the environmental impact. A State Environmental Protection Administration report says that on a "smog day," 79 percent of the air pollution is caused by car fumes.
According to experts, the discharge of harmful car exhausts will be reduced by 3,000 tons on Car-Free Day. These fumes threaten people's lives by damaging the respiratory system - particularly the lungs. They also cause cancer and deteriorate heart disease.
The growing number of traffic accidents is another threat. China's annual death toll of 100,000 from traffic accidents is by far the highest in the world.
While Car-Free Day in Beijing got a lukewarm response two years ago, the keen participation of 108 cities this year shows growing public concern about the traffic and environmental problems caused by cars.
Today, all cars will be barred from selected areas in these 108 cities. People will be encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport.
A massive week-long campaign promoting the use of public transport started in all of these cities on September 16. Many government officials have also pledged their support by vowing to use only public transport.
Compared with cars, public transport like buses and the subway network are a cleaner, more economical and safer alternative.
Cycling and walking are the healthier options. Exercise not only delays the aging of the brain, but also enhances the function of the heart and lungs, as well as strengthening muscles and increasing fitness.
But emissions from the rising number of cars on the roads are affecting the air quality of cyclists and pedestrians.
Local governments haven't helped the situation by expanding car lanes and shrinking or even eliminating bike lanes and footpaths.
That policy has clearly failed. It sends the wrong message by inviting more people to buy cars. So even with widened roads, traffic congestion has become worse than ever before in most Chinese cities.
By favoring drivers, this policy has discriminated against the vast number of cyclists and pedestrians.
Hopefully, today's Car-Free Day will be an awakening for all the local governments that are still making or carrying out these policies.
In Shanghai, the government has switched its emphasis to public transport by designating more bus lanes. Discounts are also being offered for transfers to the city's public transport system.
Some 400 kilometers of subway network is expected to be operational by 2010. This mass transit system aims to make driving a car less necessary in Shanghai.
Shanghai is also reportedly considering introducing a congestion charge in the city center to relieve both the hazards from traffic congestion and air pollution.
As excessive numbers of cars choke up cities and make them less inhabitable, the pledge by 108 Chinese cities to the world to free the streets of cars for a day is just the beginning of the battle.
With cleaner air and smoother traffic in these 108 Chinese cities for a day, more cities will hopefully want to join the campaign next year. And if that happens, it may trigger a shift in thinking; more people might share the hope that Car-Free Day is not just on Sept. 22, but a possibility 365 days of the year.
(Source: China Daily)
| Editor: Du Guodong |
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
political biking
"... The real problem, the secretary argued, is that only 60 percent of the current money raised by gas taxes goes to highways and bridges. She conveniently neglected to mention that about 30 percent of the money goes to public transit. She then went on to blast congressional earmarks, which dedicate 10 percent of the gas tax to some 6,000 other projects around the country. 'There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure,' she said. The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails 'are really not transportation.'
I've been happily riding my bike all over Chengdu for a month. Unfortunately my flatmate's bike was stolen from our apartment complex last night, so I'm getting paranoid. Might be time to invest in another lock; I estimate I have three or four more months before this bike pays itself off. Looks like it's time to figure out how to cast my vote next year.
"Peters' comments set off an eruption of blogging, e-mailing and letter-writing among bike riders and activists, incensed that no matter how many times they burn calories instead of fossil fuels with the words 'One Less Car' or 'We're Not Holding Up the Traffic, We Are the Traffic' plastered on their helmets, their pedal pushing is not taken seriously as a form of transportation by the honchos in Washington, D.C."
MoreI've been happily riding my bike all over Chengdu for a month. Unfortunately my flatmate's bike was stolen from our apartment complex last night, so I'm getting paranoid. Might be time to invest in another lock; I estimate I have three or four more months before this bike pays itself off. Looks like it's time to figure out how to cast my vote next year.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Choice Quote on Driving
"I believe that while there are many reasons for the growth of individualism in the UK, the extreme libertarianism now beginning to take hold here begins on the road. When you drive, society becomes an obstacle. Pedestrians, bicycles, traffic calming, speed limits, the law: all become a nuisance to be wished away. The more you drive, the more bloody-minded and individualistic you become. The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the Australians, into a nation that recognises only the freedom to act, and not the freedom from the consequences of other people's actions. We drive on the left in Britain, but we are being driven to the right."
-- George Monbiot, "They call themselves libertarians; I think they're antisocial bastards," The Guardian, Tuesday December 20, 2005
Also, my own experience at intersections in China (a response to a discussion on the "shared space" traffic concept):
I currently live in Chengdu (pop. somewhere around 10 million) and have visited many of the nation's other large cities. For whatever reason (my conjecture is the relatively recent introduction of the automobile to the masses), traffic lights here are regularly ignored by rivers, pedestrians, and bikers. At intersections, whichever group is the greatest in number seems to just go; and it is a nice contrast to crossing the street in my former haunts of Los Angeles, where was often the lone pedestrian against a street full of cars, to feel that those great hordes of us on foot/bike are taking (back) the streets from automobiles. On the flip side, we can never assume we have the right of way; that right is almost always taken by drivers. Of course all this is changing, with increasing numbers of cars on the street every day, and more and more uniformed traffic guards at all four corners of major intersections, armed with whistles (though not much else), waving at bikers and pedestrians to stay behind the lines when their light is red. This, too, seems to be a re-engineering of social mentality to conform to cars: Those of us on foot/bike need to yield to car drivers for our own safety while they are generally free to do as they please, including driving down bike lines that are separated from the normal driving lanes by cement barriers.
And lastly, a quote oft-attributed to Margaret Thatcher, though that's disputed by at least one source:
“A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure.”
-- George Monbiot, "They call themselves libertarians; I think they're antisocial bastards," The Guardian, Tuesday December 20, 2005
Also, my own experience at intersections in China (a response to a discussion on the "shared space" traffic concept):
I currently live in Chengdu (pop. somewhere around 10 million) and have visited many of the nation's other large cities. For whatever reason (my conjecture is the relatively recent introduction of the automobile to the masses), traffic lights here are regularly ignored by rivers, pedestrians, and bikers. At intersections, whichever group is the greatest in number seems to just go; and it is a nice contrast to crossing the street in my former haunts of Los Angeles, where was often the lone pedestrian against a street full of cars, to feel that those great hordes of us on foot/bike are taking (back) the streets from automobiles. On the flip side, we can never assume we have the right of way; that right is almost always taken by drivers. Of course all this is changing, with increasing numbers of cars on the street every day, and more and more uniformed traffic guards at all four corners of major intersections, armed with whistles (though not much else), waving at bikers and pedestrians to stay behind the lines when their light is red. This, too, seems to be a re-engineering of social mentality to conform to cars: Those of us on foot/bike need to yield to car drivers for our own safety while they are generally free to do as they please, including driving down bike lines that are separated from the normal driving lanes by cement barriers.
And lastly, a quote oft-attributed to Margaret Thatcher, though that's disputed by at least one source:
“A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure.”
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Three Most Eloquent Paragraphs ...
... I've read on urban sprawl and car usage:
"By far the worst damage we Americans do to the planet arises not from the newspapers we throw away but from the eight hundred and fifty million or so gallons of oil we consume every day. We all know this at some level, yet we live like alcoholics in denial. How else can we explain that our cars have grown bigger, heavier, and less fuel efficient at the same time that scientists have become more certain and more specific about the consequences of our addiction to gasoline?
"On a shelf in my office is a small pile of recent books about the environment which I plan to reread obsessively if I’m found to have a terminal illness, because they’re so unsettling that they may make me less upset about being snatched from life in my prime. At the top of the pile is 'Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil,' by David Goodstein, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, which was published earlier this year. “The world will soon start to run out of conventionally produced, cheap oil,” Goodstein begins. In succeeding pages, he lucidly explains that humans have consumed almost a trillion barrels of oil (that’s forty-two trillion gallons), or about half of the earth’s total supply; that a devastating global petroleum crisis will begin not when we have pumped the last barrel out of the ground but when we have reached the halfway point, because at that moment, for the first time in history, the line representing supply will fall through the line representing demand; that we will probably pass that point within the current decade, if we haven’t passed it already; that various well-established laws of economics are about to assert themselves, with disastrous repercussions for almost everything; and that 'civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century unless we can find a way to live without fossil fuels.'"
"Standing between us and any conceivable solution to our energy nightmare are our cars and the asphalt-latticed country we have built to oblige them. Those cars have defined our culture and our lives. A car is speed and sex and power and emancipation. It makes its driver a self-sufficient nation of one. It is everything a city is not."
-GREEN MANHATTAN
Why New York is the greenest city in the U.S.
By David Owen
Published in The New Yorker
10/18/04
"By far the worst damage we Americans do to the planet arises not from the newspapers we throw away but from the eight hundred and fifty million or so gallons of oil we consume every day. We all know this at some level, yet we live like alcoholics in denial. How else can we explain that our cars have grown bigger, heavier, and less fuel efficient at the same time that scientists have become more certain and more specific about the consequences of our addiction to gasoline?
"On a shelf in my office is a small pile of recent books about the environment which I plan to reread obsessively if I’m found to have a terminal illness, because they’re so unsettling that they may make me less upset about being snatched from life in my prime. At the top of the pile is 'Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil,' by David Goodstein, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, which was published earlier this year. “The world will soon start to run out of conventionally produced, cheap oil,” Goodstein begins. In succeeding pages, he lucidly explains that humans have consumed almost a trillion barrels of oil (that’s forty-two trillion gallons), or about half of the earth’s total supply; that a devastating global petroleum crisis will begin not when we have pumped the last barrel out of the ground but when we have reached the halfway point, because at that moment, for the first time in history, the line representing supply will fall through the line representing demand; that we will probably pass that point within the current decade, if we haven’t passed it already; that various well-established laws of economics are about to assert themselves, with disastrous repercussions for almost everything; and that 'civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century unless we can find a way to live without fossil fuels.'"
"Standing between us and any conceivable solution to our energy nightmare are our cars and the asphalt-latticed country we have built to oblige them. Those cars have defined our culture and our lives. A car is speed and sex and power and emancipation. It makes its driver a self-sufficient nation of one. It is everything a city is not."
-GREEN MANHATTAN
Why New York is the greenest city in the U.S.
By David Owen
Published in The New Yorker
10/18/04
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
A Good Idea for Downtown L.A.
This is fantastic. Although I do have to take exception to the implication that all pedicabs in Asia are straight out of the 18th century. I have never seen a runner rickshaw in Chengdu; though they might not be the high-tech creations Mr. Green is driving, they are all tricycle-style. I've taken some photos recently which I will attempt to post soon (waiting for the film to be processed--a challenge in and of itself when dealing with black and white, it would seem).
Pedal PowerEric Green and His 'Green Machine' Are Giving Downtown a Lift
Eric Green pulls out of the valet driveway of Downtown's Sheraton Hotel, making his way onto Hope Street as more than a few curious glances are flashed his way.
The hotel doorman/entrepreneur nods politely to passersby, graciously allows cars the right of way and keeps up pleasant conversation as he passes the new Ralphs supermarket and turns onto Ninth Street.
Eric Green and his Green Machine are ferrying pedestrians across Downtown. The entrepreneur has launched a pedicab business that serves the residential and business community, as well as bar hoppers. Photo by Gary Leonard.
But it's not a yellow cab he drives. Green uses manpower to fuel his pedicab, a smart-looking contraption that is part bike and part carriage, through the streets of Downtown Los Angeles. Dubbed the "Green Machine," the moniker is a play on his last name, the vehicle's color and the fact that it's environmentally friendly.
Green's service is the first of its kind in Downtown. In just two weeks on the road, he's already getting plenty of attention from hotel concierges and bar managers eager to use the pedicab for their customers, as well as some bloggers."
For the complete text, click here.
In other news, I purchased a bicycle yesterday. It's a miniature bicycle with wheels about a foot in diameter, and it can completely fold up. It's orange. I like it. No, I love it. Unfortunately I couldn't ride it home yesterday from work because the bicycle guard locked it up at 9 when he went home and took the key with him. Oops.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
a well-worded rant, i thought
I received this a few days ago in my mailbox, via the carfree cities Yahoo! group.
"OK.
Lance Armstrong pedalling a bike-driven generator can
produce about 350 watts and he can probably keep this
up for about 3 hours. That is, roughly, 1 kilowatt-hour.
If Lance drives to the gym in a Prius and he travels
10 miles round trip, he uses an average of about 10 HP
for a period of 10 minutes (assuming an unlikely average
speed of 60 MPH). At 746 watts/HP, this is 74,600 watt-min:
10 min * 10 HP * 746 watts
74,600 watt-min is 1243 watt-hours or 1.243 kWh
So, in ten minutes of driving, Lance uses more energy than
he can produce in 3 hours of pedalling.
Now, if it's YOU on the treadmill, how many watts continuous
can you produced for three hours?
If you power your car by pedalling a generator to charge
its batteries, you're going to have to pedal for, say,
one working shift in order to drive 10 miles back and
forth to work. Or, you could ride your bike for, say,
40 minutes each way.
We MUST get our heads around the notion of just how much
energy we are consuming. It's truly incredible. Think in
terms of reducing your energy consumption 10-fold in
your lifetime. Even THAT is probably not sustainable.
The fix we're in is so much worse than people think it is,
simply because they think it's quite normal to put 10 gallons
of gasoline in the car once or twice a week. The energy
content of that gasoline is just incredible; only since
the start of the industrial era have people been able to
consume energy at this rate. This has only been possible
because we have been burning fossil fuels created over a
span of millions of years during the course of a century.
Rainwater falling off the roof is not going to power your
next flight to Disneyworld. It's not going to get you to
the airport. In fact, it's barely going to get you out
of the driveway.
Life is going to change. Get used to it. Then figure out
how to enjoy it. That's not hard. Just imagine carfree cities."
-Joel, of carfree.com
In other news, I'm going to Hong Kong for a few days at the end of the month as my visa will be expiring. I'm planning to take the train via Guangzhou, mainly because that's the only direct train from Chengdu. From Guangzhou I'll bus or train to Shenzhen and then take the subway over the Kowloon. It's going to be long and exhausting--but fortunately, hot, so I don't have to take too many clothes with me.
"OK.
Lance Armstrong pedalling a bike-driven generator can
produce about 350 watts and he can probably keep this
up for about 3 hours. That is, roughly, 1 kilowatt-hour.
If Lance drives to the gym in a Prius and he travels
10 miles round trip, he uses an average of about 10 HP
for a period of 10 minutes (assuming an unlikely average
speed of 60 MPH). At 746 watts/HP, this is 74,600 watt-min:
10 min * 10 HP * 746 watts
74,600 watt-min is 1243 watt-hours or 1.243 kWh
So, in ten minutes of driving, Lance uses more energy than
he can produce in 3 hours of pedalling.
Now, if it's YOU on the treadmill, how many watts continuous
can you produced for three hours?
If you power your car by pedalling a generator to charge
its batteries, you're going to have to pedal for, say,
one working shift in order to drive 10 miles back and
forth to work. Or, you could ride your bike for, say,
40 minutes each way.
We MUST get our heads around the notion of just how much
energy we are consuming. It's truly incredible. Think in
terms of reducing your energy consumption 10-fold in
your lifetime. Even THAT is probably not sustainable.
The fix we're in is so much worse than people think it is,
simply because they think it's quite normal to put 10 gallons
of gasoline in the car once or twice a week. The energy
content of that gasoline is just incredible; only since
the start of the industrial era have people been able to
consume energy at this rate. This has only been possible
because we have been burning fossil fuels created over a
span of millions of years during the course of a century.
Rainwater falling off the roof is not going to power your
next flight to Disneyworld. It's not going to get you to
the airport. In fact, it's barely going to get you out
of the driveway.
Life is going to change. Get used to it. Then figure out
how to enjoy it. That's not hard. Just imagine carfree cities."
-Joel, of carfree.com
In other news, I'm going to Hong Kong for a few days at the end of the month as my visa will be expiring. I'm planning to take the train via Guangzhou, mainly because that's the only direct train from Chengdu. From Guangzhou I'll bus or train to Shenzhen and then take the subway over the Kowloon. It's going to be long and exhausting--but fortunately, hot, so I don't have to take too many clothes with me.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Another Former Angeleno Weighs in on L.A.'s Car Crunch
Seeing some good stuff from some of the e-mail lists I'm on lately. This one sounds like a good plan. The Wilshire Rapid Bus line is one of the most used, so why not expand capacity?
No cars on Wilshire
An above-ground rail line to the ocean, along with bike lanes and a few buses, would ease L.A. traffic immeasurably.
Michael Balter
July 22, 2007
Forget the "subway to the sea." It is a dramatic and radical idea to relieve traffic congestion on the Westside, but extending the Wilshire Boulevard Purple Line from its current terminus at Western Avenue to Santa Monica probably won't happen.
An even more dramatic and radical idea -- and one that wouldn't cost $5 billion and take at least 10 years to complete -- would be to turn Wilshire Boulevard into a car-free, rapid-transit, bicycle-friendly transportation artery. How?
First, ban all automobiles from the entire 15-mile length of the boulevard. Second, beginning at its Western Avenue station, bring the Metro Rail to street level and run it to and from the sea on two sets of rails in the center of Wilshire, which has four or more lanes down its entire length and is thus wide enough to accommodate the route. Third, create bus lanes running east and west for riders who want to make more frequent stops, leaving express service to the Metro Rail. Fourth, install protected bicycle lanes in each direction at the edges of the boulevard and provide inexpensive, self-service rent-a-bike stations every 300 yards (as in Paris) so riders can pick up a bike anywhere on Wilshire and drop it off where they like.
There are some practical problems. Overpasses or underpasses might have to be built at key intersections to channel cross traffic. Side-street access to some parking structures would have to be created. And the possible mini-congestion caused by cars forced to turn around on smaller streets that dead-end at Wilshire would have to be handled. Still, compared with the estimated cost of building a subway -- more than $300 million a mile -- solving these problems would be inexpensive. And because a lot of the Metro Rail infrastructure already exists, the price tag of bringing it above ground and extending it to the sea would be at the low end of the $30 million to $70 million a mile currently estimated for street-level light rail.
The remaking of Wilshire Boulevard should not take place in a vacuum. The Exposition Line from downtown to Santa Monica must be built, Olympic and Pico boulevards should be turned into one-way streets, and every major street should be fitted with bike lanes.
In "Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals," social critic Paul Goodman proposed banning all private cars from Manhattan, a proposal far more ambitious than keeping them off one thoroughfare in Los Angeles. He even suggested that a candidate for mayor run on such a platform. "The candidate would lose on the first try," Goodman wrote, "because he would be considered radical and irresponsibly adventurous; but he would win the second time around, when people had had the chance to think the matter through and see that it made sense."
Freeing Wilshire Boulevard of cars makes perfect sense.
Michael Balter, a former Angeleno, is a Paris-based journalist.
No cars on Wilshire
An above-ground rail line to the ocean, along with bike lanes and a few buses, would ease L.A. traffic immeasurably.
Michael Balter
July 22, 2007
Forget the "subway to the sea." It is a dramatic and radical idea to relieve traffic congestion on the Westside, but extending the Wilshire Boulevard Purple Line from its current terminus at Western Avenue to Santa Monica probably won't happen.
An even more dramatic and radical idea -- and one that wouldn't cost $5 billion and take at least 10 years to complete -- would be to turn Wilshire Boulevard into a car-free, rapid-transit, bicycle-friendly transportation artery. How?
First, ban all automobiles from the entire 15-mile length of the boulevard. Second, beginning at its Western Avenue station, bring the Metro Rail to street level and run it to and from the sea on two sets of rails in the center of Wilshire, which has four or more lanes down its entire length and is thus wide enough to accommodate the route. Third, create bus lanes running east and west for riders who want to make more frequent stops, leaving express service to the Metro Rail. Fourth, install protected bicycle lanes in each direction at the edges of the boulevard and provide inexpensive, self-service rent-a-bike stations every 300 yards (as in Paris) so riders can pick up a bike anywhere on Wilshire and drop it off where they like.
There are some practical problems. Overpasses or underpasses might have to be built at key intersections to channel cross traffic. Side-street access to some parking structures would have to be created. And the possible mini-congestion caused by cars forced to turn around on smaller streets that dead-end at Wilshire would have to be handled. Still, compared with the estimated cost of building a subway -- more than $300 million a mile -- solving these problems would be inexpensive. And because a lot of the Metro Rail infrastructure already exists, the price tag of bringing it above ground and extending it to the sea would be at the low end of the $30 million to $70 million a mile currently estimated for street-level light rail.
The remaking of Wilshire Boulevard should not take place in a vacuum. The Exposition Line from downtown to Santa Monica must be built, Olympic and Pico boulevards should be turned into one-way streets, and every major street should be fitted with bike lanes.
In "Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals," social critic Paul Goodman proposed banning all private cars from Manhattan, a proposal far more ambitious than keeping them off one thoroughfare in Los Angeles. He even suggested that a candidate for mayor run on such a platform. "The candidate would lose on the first try," Goodman wrote, "because he would be considered radical and irresponsibly adventurous; but he would win the second time around, when people had had the chance to think the matter through and see that it made sense."
Freeing Wilshire Boulevard of cars makes perfect sense.
Michael Balter, a former Angeleno, is a Paris-based journalist.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Food for Thought
From a New Mexico Rail Advocacy group, http://www.nmrails. org/chew. html
Thirteen advantages to rail travel:
1 A modern small automobile with two passengers generates almost 25
times the air pollution, per passenger mile, as a four car commuter
train at 35% capacity.
2 Two sets of commuter rail tracks will handle the passenger traffic
of at least six lanes of highway.
3 The tracks for a commuter train already exist here; those for a
light rail system can be laid within existing infrastructure,
preserving open space and minimizing land and business condemnation.
4 A new light-rail line costs about a third of a new highway or loop
road, and recent developments in track-laying technology can shave
60% to 70% off that cost.
5 Trains are faster, quieter, and smoother than buses. In addition,
they avoid traffic jams and most accident scenes.
6 Modern commuter and light-rail trains are built to run forward or
backward, eliminating the need for huge turnaround loops.
7 Rail deaths and injuries are almost nothing compared to those in
automobiles.
8 Rail cars and locomotives have been known to last up to 100 years
with decent maintenance.
9 Railroad tracks are cheaper and easier to maintain than roads and
highways.
10 There is no rubber tire disposal problem with trains (a much
bigger issue than many people realize).
11 Most skeptical commuters who try trains are converted within a
trip or two.
12 Commuter and light rail lines have triggered a boom, revitalizing
rundown neighborhoods and buildings in areas where they have been
located. Land values in older communities are rising, a dent is being
made in suburban sprawl and even some long-abandoned hazardous waste
sites are slated for clean-up, having become more attractive to
housing, retail, and office developers.
13 Railroad transit is a big part of the "intermodal" -- or many
modes of transportation- -thinking that has become more popular
nationally and worldwide every year--not to mention mandated by
federal law since 1991.
Thirteen advantages to rail travel:
1 A modern small automobile with two passengers generates almost 25
times the air pollution, per passenger mile, as a four car commuter
train at 35% capacity.
2 Two sets of commuter rail tracks will handle the passenger traffic
of at least six lanes of highway.
3 The tracks for a commuter train already exist here; those for a
light rail system can be laid within existing infrastructure,
preserving open space and minimizing land and business condemnation.
4 A new light-rail line costs about a third of a new highway or loop
road, and recent developments in track-laying technology can shave
60% to 70% off that cost.
5 Trains are faster, quieter, and smoother than buses. In addition,
they avoid traffic jams and most accident scenes.
6 Modern commuter and light-rail trains are built to run forward or
backward, eliminating the need for huge turnaround loops.
7 Rail deaths and injuries are almost nothing compared to those in
automobiles.
8 Rail cars and locomotives have been known to last up to 100 years
with decent maintenance.
9 Railroad tracks are cheaper and easier to maintain than roads and
highways.
10 There is no rubber tire disposal problem with trains (a much
bigger issue than many people realize).
11 Most skeptical commuters who try trains are converted within a
trip or two.
12 Commuter and light rail lines have triggered a boom, revitalizing
rundown neighborhoods and buildings in areas where they have been
located. Land values in older communities are rising, a dent is being
made in suburban sprawl and even some long-abandoned hazardous waste
sites are slated for clean-up, having become more attractive to
housing, retail, and office developers.
13 Railroad transit is a big part of the "intermodal" -- or many
modes of transportation- -thinking that has become more popular
nationally and worldwide every year--not to mention mandated by
federal law since 1991.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
China Increases Car Production by 30 Percent, Surpasses Germany
China is now the world's third-largest automobile producer:
"China’s rise represents the most dramatic change in the world auto industry, with production there more than quintupling in the last decade. Sales within China surpassed the 3 million mark in 2005, with nearly 9 million passenger cars on the country’s roads. While this is still a comparatively small fleet, it is likely to grow rapidly in coming years, and China is expected to become a major exporter within the next four years."
"China’s rise represents the most dramatic change in the world auto industry, with production there more than quintupling in the last decade. Sales within China surpassed the 3 million mark in 2005, with nearly 9 million passenger cars on the country’s roads. While this is still a comparatively small fleet, it is likely to grow rapidly in coming years, and China is expected to become a major exporter within the next four years."
See full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)