Today’s Headlines

  • Republican-Controlled House Would Target Obama’s Environmental Policies (LAT)
  • CARB Unveils Cap-and-Trade Rule for Major California Polluters (SF Gate, Merc)
  • SFMTA Ponders How to Make Up $3 Million Parking Revenue Hit from State (SF Examiner)
  • Second Phase of Planned AC Transit Service Cuts Take Effect (SF Gate)
  • New VTA Hybrid Buses Begin Service Today (Merc)
  • Cyclist Hit by Driver at Masonic/Fulton After Apparently Running Red Light (BIKE NOPA)
  • Man in Wheelchair Dies After Being Hit by BART Train at Hayward Station (SF Gate)
  • New FHA Program to Recognize “Walk Friendly” Communities (The Fast Lane)
  • Seattle Hospital Pledges $2 Million for Bike, Ped Projects (Bike Portland)
  • Sarah Goodyear Interviews Angela Glover Blackwell on Transportation and Social Justice (Grist)
  • LA Times: “Oil and Tobacco Companies Face Off Against Environmentalists Over Prop 26”

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Re: SFMTA $3 Mil:

    That cost should most definitely be passed onto the ticket. Why should the city pay $3 every time someone can’t follow the simple directions of feeding a parking meter?

  • In tarck roulette, you win some, you lose some…

  • In some ways it’s amusing that the state would stoop so low as to tax city parking tickets, but sadly it’s further proof of the desperation of the legislators in Sacramento. The MTA should pass on this new tax/fee/”surcharge” straight to the person incurring it with a clear demarcation that it is state-mandated and nothing to do with the city.

    In regards to car infrastructure creating more car traffic, this is an interesting article that refers to the research in the book, “Suburban Nation,” by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck.

    “And what makes sprawl possible is, of course, cars and roads. On the subject of widening highways, the authors offer the following:

    ” ‘The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse.’

    “It is counterintuitive. You’d think that more space would alleviate the traffic. And it would, if the same number of cars used the road after it was widened. But of course that is not what happens. The temporary relief induces more cars to use the road, hence the term “induced traffic,” and invites the development of more subdivisions and strip malls near the highway. So, the road fills up again, giving rise to the adage that widening highways to solve congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity.”

    http://articles.courant.com/2010-10-31/news/hc-op-condon-dont-widen-highways-103120101031_1_traffic-increases-highways-q-bridge

    I suspect but don’t have data that this “induced traffic” phenomenon also hold true for parking garages and bicycling–adding parking spots induces people to seek parking, and adding bike lanes induces people to ride bikes. Perhaps we should call this the law of built infrastructure. If you build it, the numbers will follow.

  • P2P is finished.