Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A call for more highways

Expand Messages
  • dmathew1
    Hello Everyone, Maybe someone should tell the people of San Francisco that no one will be driving on their highways in 2030 ... not that it would make any
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Everyone,

      Maybe someone should tell the people of San Francisco that no one
      will be driving on their highways in 2030 ... not that it would make
      any difference, because governments all across the country are
      displaying an addict's rationality when it comes to roads, suburbs,
      and the automobile.

      Certainly the wise politicians of my own Bay Area (Tampa Bay) have
      decided to build a Beltway set for completion approximately 2015
      (cars optional). I suppose that sometime in the next ten years all
      of these highway projects will die for lack of funding as the
      automotive culture goes extinct. Trees won't much respect our
      roads, they will tear apart the asphalt for free. So much the
      better.

      I want trees on the Interstate and cars rusting away to dust in the
      yards. That's the most optimistic outlook that I have for the
      automotive culture. The pessimistic outlook involved World War III
      in the Middle East and Mutually Assurred Destruction active
      throughout the world.

      Let's work for a peaceful end to the American empire, people.
      Things are bad enough already, we need not allow them to get much
      worse.

      Sincerely,

      David Mathews
      http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1




      BAY AREA
      A call for more highways
      Group argues region's focus on mass transit is flawed
      Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer

      Thursday, August 31, 2006

      http://tinyurl.com/p4t3e

      Bay Area roads and freeways, already among the nation's most
      congested, will be as clogged in 2030 as Los Angeles' are now,
      according to a study to be released today.

      But the region can avoid emulating L.A.'s tangled traffic and
      accommodate expected population growth, the group behind the study
      says, with a major expansion of the Bay Area's road and highway
      system -- including a network of toll lanes as well as dedicated
      truck lanes between the East Bay and the San Joaquin Valley.

      The study released by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think
      tank that advocates toll lanes, also takes a shot at the
      Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the region's transportation
      planning and financing agency, and its long-range spending plan,
      which over the next 25 years steers most money for new
      transportation projects to mass transit.

      "We're saying we really need to look hard at changing priorities,"
      said Robert Poole, Reason's transportation director. Building and
      expanding highways "has gradually become the abandoned stepchild in
      transportation planning. Public transportation and carpooling alone
      can't eliminate congestion. People still like to drive, and they're
      still moving to far-flung suburbs."

      Randy Rentschler, a transportation commission spokesman, said that
      adding thousands of miles of highways might ease congestion, but the
      Bay Area would end up looking like Los Angeles with concrete, smog
      and sprawl as far as the eye can see.

      "Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease," he said. "We could
      get a bigger bang for our buck if we just threw in the towel and
      said everyone's going to drive, so let's build more freeways. But I
      think people in the Bay Area have more objectives than just
      relieving congestion. We want the Bay Area to be a nice place to
      live. We want freeways but we don't want them in our backyards."

      Adding 2,261 miles of new lanes -- 1,341 on freeways, 920 on
      arterial roads -- would save nearly 314 million hours a year now
      lost by drivers sitting in traffic, the report says. It estimates
      the cost of providing that relief at $29.2 billion -- about $257 per
      Bay Area resident.

      A road that long could reach from Oakland to Cincinnati. And that
      much money could cover the estimated cost of building a statewide
      high-speed rail system with a few billion dollars left over.

      "While $29.2 billion may sound like an exceedingly large investment,
      it is actually just 24.8 percent of the planned transportation
      spending by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,'' the report
      says.

      About 80 percent of Bay Area residents commute by car, according to
      the report, and 10 percent use public transportation.

      "And yet, public transportation accounts for well over half, 64
      percent, of the area's planned transportation spending over the next
      25 years,'' the report says.

      Rentschler said Bay Area residents, even those who don't use it
      regularly, favor public transit as part of the transportation
      system.

      Matthew Seubert agreed. The San Francisco resident commutes to his
      Redwood City job as a San Mateo County planner. He drives to work
      about half the time and takes the train the rest.

      Public funds should be spent on both widening highways and improving
      transit, and the transportation commission's funding priorities
      shouldn't change, he said.

      "The highways are definitely crowded, but public transportation is a
      good option because it gives people an alternative to get to work,"
      he said.

      The study's authors, a transportation studies professor and a
      graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
      used congestion data from the Texas Transportation Institute --
      which rates the Bay Area as the third most-congested metropolitan
      area in the nation -- and applied growth and traffic density
      projections to develop future congestion forecasts for urban areas
      around the nation. They used those projections to determine how much
      additional highway capacity would be needed to relieve rush-hour
      congestion and compared that with long-range plans.

      The recommendation of nearly 2,300 miles of new lanes for the Bay
      Area was calculated by formula, and the study's authors don't
      specify where roads or freeways should be expanded or built. But,
      Poole said, another Reason report expected to be released this fall
      will recommend specific improvements, such as adding toll lanes and
      building truck toll lanes between the Port of Oakland and the
      Central Valley. Toll lanes would allow solo drivers to use a
      dedicated, and likely less crowded, lane in exchange for a fee.

      The study examined traffic in all 50 states and major urban areas.
      Severe traffic congestion, already common in large urban areas, will
      spread to even small cities by 2030, the report concludes. It says
      that nationally, 104,000 miles of new lanes will be needed by 2030.

      That's enough miles of road to circle the globe four times and would
      cost an estimated $533 billion -- a price the study authors say is
      affordable within existing budgets.

      "The old canard 'We can't build our way out of congestion' is not
      true," the report argues. "Adding capacity and improving management
      of roads can eliminate chronic congestion."



      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      U.S. cities seen as having worst driving commutes in 2030
      1. Los Angeles-Long Beach

      2. Chicago

      3. Washington, D.C.

      4. San Francisco-Oakland

      5. Atlanta

      6. Miami

      7. Denver-Aurora

      8. Seattle-Tacoma

      9. Las Vegas

      10. Minneapolis-St. Paul

      Source: Reason Foundation



      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      States ranked by lane-miles needed
      1. California (13,132 miles)

      2. Texas (12,929)

      3. Florida (8,536)

      4. Colorado (4,668)

      5. New York (4,512)

      6. Pennsylvania (4,465)

      7. Illinois (4,459)

      8. North Carolina (4,361)

      9. Arizona (3,813)

      10. Michigan (3,668)

      Source: Reason Foundation



      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------
      By the numbers
      $121.9 billion: Amount study authors want to spend on new lanes

      8,730: Estimated miles of congested California freeways by 2030

      80: Percent of Bay Area car commuters

      3: Bay Area's rank in current list of most-congested cities

      1: Los Angeles' rank in list of most-congested cities

      $257: Cost per resident each year to build new lanes

      $118 billion: Amount MTC plans to spend on transportation in 25
      years

      $42 million: Amount planned for highway improvements

      $76 billion: Amount planned for transit improvements

      Source: Reason Foundation, Texas Transportation Institute

      Chronicle staff writer John Coté contributed to this report. E-mail
      Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@....

      Page B - 1
      URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
      file=/c/a/2006/08/31/BAGM1KSLBN1.DTL
    • Stuart Studebaker
      ... Had you actually read the article you posted, you would have noticed a few salient facts within: 1. The study released by the Reason Foundation, a
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        "dmathew1" dmathew1@... dmathew1 wrote:

        >Maybe someone should tell the people of San Francisco that no one
        >will be driving on their highways in 2030 ... not that it would make
        >any difference, because governments all across the country are
        >displaying an addict's rationality when it comes to roads, suburbs,
        >and the automobile.
        >

        Had you actually read the article you posted, you would have noticed a
        few salient facts within:

        1. "The study released by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think
        tank that advocates toll lanes"

        Libertarians are more popular in the south bay than the north bay, and
        a libertarian study is OF COURSE going to dog public (anything). by
        using a study by a fringe organisation and then saying "someone should
        tell the people of San Francisco" is simply the most egregious and
        pathetic display of card stacking I have read in a long time. you
        should be ashamed of yourself.

        2. to further rebut your broad brush smear of the people of San
        Francisco (of which I am one) the article also mentions:

        "About 80 percent of Bay Area residents commute by car, according to
        the report, and 10 percent use public transportation. "And yet, public
        transportation accounts for well over half, 64 percent, of the area's
        planned transportation spending over the next 25 years,'' the report
        says. Rentschler said Bay Area residents, even those who don't use it
        regularly, favor public transit as part of the transportation system. "

        So, OBVIOUSLY the PEOPLE and the elected gov'ts of SF (and the bay
        area) FAVOUR public transport, and by a large margin - *even when they
        don't necessarily use it*, as they understand that it is a common and
        obvious GOOD. This means that the recomendations of such an
        organisation DO NOT meet with the general approval of SF Bay area
        residents.

        Beyond your hamhanded swipe, you obviously aren't informed of what
        actually IS going on in SF. so I'll inform you of a few of the things
        going on here...

        On April 11, 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously
        passed a resolution that will pave the way toward the city addressing
        the challenges of peak oil (petroleum depletion) on the City and County
        of San Francisco, making it the first city in the country to formally
        address this issue.

        The resolution was envisioned, written, and presented to the board by
        members of a committee of concerned citizens belonging to a local
        grassroots organization, San Francisco Oil Awareness, an outpost of the
        Post Carbon Institute. It was sponsored by city supervisors Ross
        Mirkarimi, Jake McGoldrick, Sophie Maxwell, and Chris Daly.

        The resolution calls for the establishment of a city-wide study to
        assess San Francisco's vulnerability to peak oil. Work on this study
        will begin with hearings conducted under the auspices of the Local
        Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) , which is also considering San
        Francisco's policy on Community Choice Aggregation of electricity
        supply. The results of the study will inform the city of possible
        measures and policies that may help in mitigating the impact of high
        petroleum prices on city of San Francisco and its citizens.

        http://www.archive.org/details/SF_Supervisors_PeakOil_Resolution_vote

        has a link to a video of this historic moment.

        I am involved with the SF Post Carbon group which meets regularly. Part
        of the above noted passage of the legislation resulted in a meeting of
        the LAFCo. Richard Heinberg presented the evidence at that meeting,
        which I also attended. Afterwards, I had the good fortune to have
        dinner with Mr Heinberg and a few other members of the SFBay Oil group.

        SF *is* working to figure out how to deal with the coming transition,
        and SF residents, while hardly a uniform bunch of enlightened angels do
        have a large and growing awareness of peak oil issues.

        I have been i ncontact with Supervisor Mirkarimi and sent him some
        useful ideas for strategies to help with the transition.

        So kindly take your third rate card stacking propaganda and insert it
        in your final voluntary sphincter.

        S2
        SF
        CA

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • dmathew1
        Hello Stuart, ... You don t have to get all emotional like this over good news. If your & your group have made progress in San Francisco, I am pleased by your
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Stuart,

          > So kindly take your third rate card stacking propaganda and insert it
          > in your final voluntary sphincter.

          You don't have to get all emotional like this over good news. If your
          & your group have made progress in San Francisco, I am pleased by your
          success. Too bad the rest of the country isn't as wise. The
          politicians in Florida are all road-crazy, they'd pave over the entire
          state and pretty much have in certain areas.

          Sincerely,

          David Mathews
          http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
        • Mark Knapp
          ... The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (and other organizations, I believe) convinced the government to tear down a highway (the Embarcadero Freeway) that had
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Stuart Studebaker wrote:

            > SF *is* working to figure out how to deal with the coming
            > transition, and SF residents, while hardly a uniform bunch
            > of enlightened angels do have a large and growing awareness
            > of peak oil issues.

            The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (and other organizations,
            I believe) convinced the government to tear down a highway
            (the Embarcadero Freeway) that had been damaged by the 1989
            earthquake. The city replaced the space with a boulevard with
            bicycle lanes and a train in the middle. See the results for
            yourself:
            http://homepage.mac.com/trorb/BikeTV/iMovieTheater132.html

            "If you take away car capacity, those cars don't
            necessarily get diverted or sit on top of each other.
            Some of those people say, 'Ah, nuts! I'm going to
            stop driving. I'll take the bus; I'll get a bike;
            I'll start walking.' We've seen that in a lot of
            projects around the city." -- Andy Thornley

            Mark Knapp



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Mark Knapp
            ... The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (and other organizations, I believe) convinced the government to tear down a highway (the Embarcadero Freeway) that had
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Stuart Studebaker wrote:

              > SF *is* working to figure out how to deal with the coming
              > transition, and SF residents, while hardly a uniform bunch
              > of enlightened angels do have a large and growing awareness
              > of peak oil issues.

              The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (and other organizations,
              I believe) convinced the government to tear down a highway
              (the Embarcadero Freeway) that had been damaged by the 1989
              earthquake. The city replaced the space with a boulevard with
              bicycle lanes and a train in the middle. See the results for
              yourself:
              http://homepage.mac.com/trorb/BikeTV/iMovieTheater132.html

              "If you take away car capacity, those cars don't
              necessarily get diverted or sit on top of each other.
              Some of those people say, 'Ah, nuts! I'm going to
              stop driving. I'll take the bus; I'll get a bike;
              I'll start walking.' We've seen that in a lot of
              projects around the city." -- Andy Thornley

              Mark Knapp



              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Stuart Studebaker
              ... Well, thanks for your support! SF is *hardly* perfect or a good model of many things, but we are trying to make some important things happen. As Mr Knapp
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Mr Mathews wrote:


                >You don't have to get all emotional like this over good news.
                >If your & your group have made progress in San Francisco, I am
                >pleased by your success. Too bad the rest of the country isn't
                >as wise. The politicians in Florida are all road-crazy, they'd
                >pave over the entire state and pretty much have in certain areas.

                Well, thanks for your support!

                SF is *hardly* perfect or a good model of many things, but we are
                trying to make some important things happen. As Mr Knapp noted, we tore
                down the Embarcadero Freeway (GADS - what a BLIGHT that thing was...)
                and replaced it with a regular surface street and bike lanes. It now
                connects the Pier 39 tourist area with downtown. Whoopie...

                We also took out the 101 exit that dumped everyone on Fell St. It is
                now an ext that dumps everyone several blocks farther back onto
                Octavia, where they replaced the area where the overpass once stood
                with a park, some streets and bike lanes. In taking out the overpass,
                they transformed Hayes Valley from being a seedy dump of a
                neighbourhood into a rather fancy pants area of galleries, cafes, etc.

                SF is presently rebuilding the Bay Bridge so that it might withstand
                another huge earthquake. A lot of energy is going into that. Once
                complete, and gas hits $10 a gallon, it'll be an *astounding* e-bike
                ride over the bay...

                SF is still overrun with too many cars and too many clueless fuckwits
                wo vote, but overall, we are making some progress.

                I think that this move by the city gov't to develop a depletion
                protocol is a Very Good Thing, and will only serve the city and its
                people well. There are a lot of people on this list (and elsewhere) who
                are of the type who see Government as "gubmint" - some kind of evil
                socialist entity, but in fact, with the right people on board and a
                less passive citizenry, government can and does have its uses. It's not
                an answer - by any stretch - but it can be very useful in steering
                things into a more productive direction.

                The answer is getting involved and GETTING ORGANISED.

                You, Mr Mathews, could be very useful in helping Tampa get its act
                together.


                I did a simple search on Tampa post carbon etc. and got this search:

                http://tinyurl.com/m2hyh

                and in there, this link,

                http://www.relocalize.net/blog/1988

                to someone who finds the Tampa Bay Post Carbon Group wanting. I'm sure
                that with your effort, and Mister Melton's, that you could vitalise the
                Tampa Bay PCI group. There is no "answer" to peak oil - as you well
                know - it's just a fact. the thing is, though, it doesn't *have* to be
                a
                *complete* disaster. As cities like SF develop protocol and plans for
                the future, so too, others will do much the same. And there *is*
                precedent for it in your area.

                My father-in-law used to be the ladnsape architect for St. Pete's a
                long time ago. One of the things he did was design a park in (or near?
                I forget...) St Pete's that was completely localised and native
                planted, preserving the wetlands as an object of enjoyment and study,
                rather than something more resembling a golf course. That was back in
                the early 1970s.

                There are people near you, and they are thinking similar thoughts as
                you. I think you would do well to get involved, and help work at
                pulling the curve out a bit - to achieve a die down instead of a die
                off. It's just that little tiny bit, that wee switch on the light of
                consciousness, that says "get INVOLVED. get ORGANISED." It beats the
                crap out of doing and expecting nothing.

                Get bike lanes installed on major surface streets. Get automobiles
                banned from parks on Sunday. Ride your bike everywhere. Get other
                people together, go to City Hall, and Get Vocal. When soem developer
                says "We're going to put 100 acres of McMansions right (here)." be at
                that meeting and explain why it's a REALLY bad idea, and how Tampa
                should be looking at developing bike lanes and reconditioning inner
                city lots into New Urbanist communities, and focusing on growing FOOD.

                you know - the usual... It's all right there. And as gas continues to
                accelerate in price, you will (of course) have all the FACTS on your
                side. Go forth. Conquer.

                Best regards,

                S2
                SF
                CA

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.