Posted in bicycling, tagged Fremont on September 28, 2016| 2 Comments »
Over the past year, Fremont has been busy striping new and improved bike lanes. Many of the projects are quite good, in particular the road-diet on Paseo Padre, and buffered bike lanes to the BART station. But then, they went and did this monstrosity:
Before this right-hook bike-lane went in, the street had just a single right-turn lane. So the new configuration just made things much more dangerous.
Posted in bicycling on September 23, 2016| 5 Comments »
Don’t blame Congress, blame bike racks for the lack of research funding for the Zika virus:
When asked why the NIH did not choose to purchase cheaper bike racks, the NIH said the bike shelters are a “long-term investment.”
“The shelters help to protect bicycles from the elements, which in turn, protects the employee’s investment with biking to work and hopefully encourages others to commute by bicycle,” Moss said. “Promotion and support of bicycling as an alternative commuting option is essential for NIH compliance with federal guidelines to promote environmental stewardship and employee health benefits.”
The NIH referred questions about the price of the bike shelters to the company and the NIH Contracting Office.
The NIH has said it has “no money” to fight the Zika virus.
The typical cost for a sheltered bike rack is on the order of $10,000. The NIH purchased two of them.
Posted in transit, tagged BART on September 14, 2016| 2 Comments »
In the November election, voters will decide whether to approve a $3.5 billion bond for overhauling and repairing BART. The East Bay Times has been editorializing against the bond. Most of what they write is completely loopy. For example, complaining that the costs are not given in year-2065 dollars, or that households would pay more if interest costs were to balloon to 12% (if rates get that high, then the BART bond will be the least of our worries).
There is, however, a kernel of truth in the argument that the bond is back-filling a structural deficit in the maintenance budget. The Times scapegoats the “excessive” worker salaries for this deficit. That is incorrect as the deficit would exist even without recent pay increases. The deficit is the result of two structural problems.
The first problem is the long-term decline in gas tax revenues. For the past two decades, politicians at the State and Federal level have refused to increase the gas-tax. As inflation eats into gas-tax revenues, there has been a big decline in revenue to support transit operations. This has forced BART and other agencies to use creative accounting and borrowing to shore up finances — but that can only go on for so long.
The second problem has to do with the design of BART itself. The low-ridership extensions into far-flung suburbs are a huge drain on finances. Unfortunately, the BART bond exacerbates the problem by providing $350 million for the construction of new parking garages. Subsidizing auto-centric development around the peripheral BART stations is not the solution to the suburban ridership problem.
Systemic Failure 