How many times do we have to see this play before we admit that it always ends the same way?
Which play? The one where gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose. . . .
The two most important rules about energy innovation are: 1) Price matters — when prices go up people change their habits. 2) You need a systemic approach. . .
There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes . . .
The same is true in geopolitics. A gas tax reduces gasoline demand and keeps dollars in America, dries up funding for terrorists and reduces the clout of Iran and Russia . . .
Which one of these things wouldn’t we want? A gasoline tax “is not just win-win; it’s win, win, win, win, win,” says the Johns Hopkins author and foreign policy specialist Michael Mandelbaum. “A gasoline tax would do more for American prosperity and strength than any other measure Obama could propose.”
The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing, a 15-member panel, wants to raise the federal gasoline tax from the current 18.4 cents per gallon to 28.4 cents per gallon. Diesel fuel would see a raise of between 12 and 15 cents per gallon.
At the same time, the commission will recommend tying the fuel tax rates to inflation. . . .
“I’m not excited about a gas tax increase, but the reality is our current gas tax doesn’t pay for upkeep of the system we have now,” Adrian Moore, vice president of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank in Los Angeles, and a member of the highway revenue commission told the AP. “We can either let the roads go to hell or we can pay more.” . . .
The estimated annual gap between revenues and the investment needed to improve highway and transit systems was about $105 billion in 2007, according to a study by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Their research also projected that the gap will increase to $134 billion in 2017 under current trends.
Join us for the National Bike Summit, Mar 10-13, 2009, Washington DC
Mark your calendars now for March 10-13 in Washington DC for the 2009 National Bike Summit. We need to keep the momentum rising as the debate on the future of federal transportation funding really starts to heat up. Make sure you are part of the 2009 Summit.
If you are interested in attending the summit from Missouri, please email director@mobikefed.org - we are keeping a list of those interested in attending so as to coordinate planning, or Missouri-specific agenda, housing and travel.
Visiting the Summit is very, very effective advocacy and plus it is just a blast!
We get to meet our senators and representatives (or in some cases their designated representatives), make the case for our issues (nationwide, statewide, and local), make great connections, and also do things like take a bicycle ride with bicycle advocates from around the country, see the DC area's transit and bicycle systems, see how their river bridges accommodate walking and bicycling, take a ride down the Mt Vernon Trail to see historical sites, and more.
Right now airline rates are low and we are planning to again do a common housing arrangement that makes housing quite inexpensive (around $200 for the entire Summit, vs. usual hotel rates of about $200/night).
Many states have delegations of 20-30 who visit the National Bike Summit every year. Last year we had an even dozen from Missouri--our most ever.
For 2009 we'd like to improve on that.
We'd like to increase that and (just as important) increase the representation from Missouri from these various groups:
- ALL 9 Missouri congressional districts (I believe only 6 were represented in 2008) - Missouri bicycle business community - Missouri bicycle clubs, mountain biking, road biking, transportational biking, racing, etc etc - health & wellness community - Safe Routes to Schools - trails groups - pedestrian groups - large cities, medium cities, small cities, rural areas - cities, counties, MPOs, state government--all levels of government
If you are (even slightly) interested in attending the summit this year as part of the Missouri delegation, please email me (director@mobikefed.org) and I'll keep you in the information loop.
A group of Truman State University students are taking an unconventional approach to improving the City’s willingness to incorporate bicycles on local roads. . . .
“We are trying to bring the community together to form a collaborative effort between other bikers,” Hall said. “We want to see more seminars and other ideas (to push biking) in the area.”
More than 20 people attended the meeting that included Mayor Martha Rowe with the idea of making bicycles a more popular means of transportation in the community. . . .
The meeting also featured two speakers adamant about biking in Kirksville. The first was Truman professor Alex Tetlak who focused on what riders can do to be safe on the road. . . .
The night’s second speaker was Dan Martin of A.T. Still University, who spoke of how Kirksville can be tailored to bicycle usage.
“We are so functional to make this a biking town.” Martin said.
Martin lived in Mesa, Ariz. before he moved to Kirksville and noted that bikes were scarce, especially with the six-lane roads and highways.
The audience discussed possible ways to expand biking in Kirksville, including ideas to create more bike paths along City roads.
This is still brand-new and "beta-quality". But please try it out and please let us know if you have any problems with it.
And thanks for helping us reach our membership goal for end-of-year 2008--800 new/renewing members.
Because the more people who band together and work together for better, safer bicycling and walking in Missouri, the more progress we will be able to make.
This is still brand-new and "beta-quality". But please try it out and please let me know if you have any problems with it.
Feel free to share the URL with your friends so they can check their membership status.
Thanks for helping us reach our membership goal--because the more people who band together and work together for better, safer bicycling and walking in Missouri, the more progress we will be able to make.
Your voice and your membership in MoBikeFed really do make a difference!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
--Brent director@mobikefed.org . . . who's off to take a ride on a beautiful day.
The context here is that providing for more walkable and bicycleable cities is usually portrayed as a venture that is at odds with the interests of the motor vehicle-driving public. But it turns out that in many cases they are not. Closing certain streets to through traffic, making traffic flow slower but more smoothly, and changing the way intersections are handled can make a city much more inviting for walking and bicycling--while simultaneously decreasing motor vehicle travel times and improving roadway safety for all users.
The benefits are much the same as with another solution we've often mentioned here on MoBikeFed News--the "Road Diet".
File this one under "intensely counterintuitive." A recent study has found that closing off certain streets can actually relieve traffic congestion. . . .
The authors compared the Nash equilibrium time to the socially optimal travel time, and dubbed the ratio between the two “the price of anarchy.” In their study of the Boston area, which looked at travel times from Harvard Square to Boston Common, the price of anarchy at peak traffic times made for a journey that is 30 percent longer.
But the price of anarchy drops if you close a few roads, because individual drivers are less able to selfishly optimize their routes. In their analysis, the authors identified six streets in Boston and Cambridge: By closing those streets, they say, the optimal collective travel time would decrease between the two points.
At first blush, this study seems dissonant with findings that traffic flows can be improved by increasing vehicular anarchy. As I noted a few months back, there is considerable evidence that removing all traffic controls – lights, signs, road markings, and even the distinction between streets and sidewalks – can actually make traffic move more smoothly, as well as cut down on the number of accidents and increase the area’s economic vitality. The idea behind these “shared streets,” which have been successfully deployed in many European cities, is that the lack of traffic signs makes you take personal responsibility for directly negotiating with the pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars around you, instead of, say, gunning it through an intersection just because you know you have the light.
But maybe these two traffic models have more in common than it first seems. Both encourage individuals to drive more slowly so that everyone gets to his destinations faster. Both favor a holistic approach to traffic, one that designs from the perspective of the overall flow rather than that of an individual driver. And both open up more space for pedestrians.
It’s not too difficult to imagine a city designed with these principles in mind. Fewer roads with slower but smoother traffic. Spaces that can easily be converted to car-free zones to suit the needs of the network. And fewer opportunities for people to drive like jerks. Sounds like a nice place to take a walk, actually.
The city of Olathe, Kansas, in the Kansas City metro area, is having a city council hearing today on a city bicycle plan that has been several years in the works.
Encouraging cities to adopt bicycle, pedestrian, and trails plans is one of the primary objectives in MoBikeFed's Vision of Active Transportation in Missouri. Currently 9 cities in MoBikeFed's area have bicycle plans adopted and 12 have plans underway.
Eric Rogers of LetsGoKC sent the following summary of Olathe's plan:
Olathe, KS is developing a new bicycle plan that focuses on providing a real transportation system with a combination of on-street bike routes and off-street trails. It is a very progressive plan for providing transportation options in a suburban community. Tonight the Olathe City Council will hear a presentation on the plan, so a big show of support would be very helpful.
The Johnson County Bicycle Club sent this summary of the progress:
There will be a presentation by staff followed by discussion with Council during which Council will give staff direction on future of the plan. Primary discussion will focus on costs to implement the plan. If, and it's big if, Council supports the plan, staff anticipates bring it back to Council for hopeful adoption by March 2009. We can expect at least one more Study Session to discuss additional policy/implementation issues following a presentation of the bike plan in January at an upcoming public Developer Forum.
Springfield lowers speed limit city-wide for better bike/ped environment
The city of Springfield has put into effect a new ordinance to lower the speed limit on residential streets all across the city.
If you live in Springfield, please take a moment to write to your city council to let them know your support this initiative--city council email is CityCouncil [at] ci.springfield.mo.us
This is a low-cost solution that can make a real difference in encourage more people to walk and bicycle (and feel safer doing it). It covers a huge area of the city at very low relative cost.
More cities in Missouri should look at following Springfield's lead. Work in countries like the UK (where a 20 MPH speed limit has been introduced in many residential areas) has indicated that the slower speed limits really do work when they are applied in the right areas--typically residential neighborhoods.
Springfield workers on Monday completed installation of new traffic signs to lower the speed limit on local streets from 30 to 25 miles per hour, according to a news release from the city.
The project required the installation of 1,816 signs on local streets, most within residential neighborhood. . . .
The speed limit was changed to boost safety and encourage drivers to voluntarily slow down to reflect the residential character of the neighborhood, officials say.
Second killer of bicyclist Robert Osborn also sentenced to 15 years
Monday, December 22, 2008
Ron and Rick Osborn with a photo of their brother Robert
The sentencing hearing for Raphael Willis, one of two who worked together to murder bicyclist Robert Osborn as he rode home from work in November 2005, was held last week in Jackson County Court.
Evidence given at the sentencing hearing indicated the shotgun used in the killing had been used in other area shootings, though prosecutors have no evidence about whether Brown, Willis, or others may have used the gun on those occasions.
Osborn's family was disappointed in the sentence for Willis, which was the result of a plea agreement. They argued vigorously in court that this crime, in which the pair stalked Osborn and took several shots at him with different weapons before hiding behind a tree to ambush him with a shotgun, rose far about the ordinary crime of passion or random shooting.
MoBikeFed submitted a letter to the court and to the prosecutor, laying out the effect this murder and other acts of violence have had on the bicycling community. In Brown's sentencing hearing, the prosecutor chose to make no summation, letting the Osborn family's words speak for themselves.
In this hearing, however, the prosecutor chose to give a stronger summation and mentioned the letter and the effect the murder has had on the community as a whole.
As he did in the Brown hearing, Judge Jay Daugherty indicated that the circumstances did not allow for a full measure of justice for the Osborn family, before handing down the sentence of 15 years for 2nd degree murder, and 3 years for a firearms charge, to be served concurrently.
Since the murder of Robert, the remaining members of the Osborn family have worked together to advocate against violence in the community. Find out more about their work at SafeStreetsKC.org.
Even at its highest, the price of gas in America hasn't come close to European prices. Governments there have made taxes the keystone of their campaign to cut consumption, promote alternative transportation and go green. It's time for the United States to do the same.
Gas prices have been rising in Europe for more than a decade, and much of the increase comes from tax hikes that now account for 40 to 50 percent of the cost to fill up. The Netherlands and Britain have nearly doubled their gas taxes, to $4.04 and $3.82 a gallon respectively, since the early 1990s. Compare that to America, where Uncle Sam tacks a paltry 18.4 cents onto every gallon of gas.
Eighteen cents? Put down that extra flat screen and smell the fumes: We can afford the tax hike.
The high gas prices we paid for fuel this summer could be a more effective remedy for our fuel-related environmental and geo-political problems than digging in our national parks. In addition to reminding us that, in cities at least, we can walk to the store, it encourages the development of new, fuel-saving technology.
We've already shown we can live with gas at $4 a gallon (less than half what some European countries saw during the price spikes last summer) without inviting the apocalypse. That pretty much shoots down the argument that people won't stand for higher gas prices. And, as Time magazine notes, an increase in the gas tax could be offset by a cut in the payroll tax, which has a far greater impact on our pocketbooks, anyway.