The Letter of the Law
Posted by: Abel Collins
in Environment
on February 25, 2010 
My mission with the Sierra Club is to fight climate change by reducing
Too often, we overlook biking and walking as viable alternatives to our automobiles, but the fact is we live in a tiny State where the power in our legs could easily satisfy many of our transportation needs. If we placed greater emphasis on designing our communities and the roads between them to be more walkable and bikeable, we could reap enormous rewards in the battle against climate change, at the same time encouraging much more healthy lifestyles.
Unfortunately,
The funny thing is that
Well, let’s make it known, and let’s point out the truth. It costs Rhode Islanders very dearly to be forced into car ownership by the lack of alternatives. We need complete streets. It is incumbent upon us as citizens to demand that the DOT follow the law in designing and redesigning our streets. The next time you see a proposal for a DOT project, take the time to see if it makes space for bicyclists and pedestrians. If it doesn’t, I hope you will join me and organize a movement to change it.
Tagged in: Untagged
Comments (26)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
written by Todd Giroux, February 24, 2010
The kids on school busses are immersed diesel fumes during the the entire procees of school buss line-up, sitting there while they idle for large amounts of time morning and afternoon. I have thought for years this is contrary to a healthy environment at any age let alone to be polluted in those younger years..
All multi-unit building should only have one heating system, not three seperate to maintain and run inefficiently. The enery out put can be measured accordingly.
The heat loss through the stack should be captured for heating water systems..
Commercial building burn 30,000 gallons of fuel per winter Those building should have smaller scale scrubber systems to capture emmissions.. and similarly the heat loss can heat the water for the building..
All multi-unit building should only have one heating system, not three seperate to maintain and run inefficiently. The enery out put can be measured accordingly.
The heat loss through the stack should be captured for heating water systems..
Commercial building burn 30,000 gallons of fuel per winter Those building should have smaller scale scrubber systems to capture emmissions.. and similarly the heat loss can heat the water for the building..
-
- +0
-
-
written by Abel Collins, February 25, 2010
Unfortunately, I think your apocalyptic take on the course of climate change is probably correct. I have read James Lovelock, and his prognostications seem to be tracking with reality better than more conservative scientific analysis. However, until you are made supreme overlord of the world, I don't see the political will to take the actions you or he suggest are necessary. We must do the best we can with the will we can muster.
Personally, I would like to see the implementation of a strong carbon tax, and even that is rarely considered as a possible carbon reduction policy. In the meantime, providing people with alternatives to carbon intensive activities like driving cars is a very reasonable start. It is not as if I am suggesting this is the one solution, but it is part of an overall strategy to reduce our reliance on cars that is necessary to make progress. Making communities walkable and bikeable works in tandem with increasing public transportation, and it further encourages the relocalization and revitalization of our cities and towns.
Personally, I would like to see the implementation of a strong carbon tax, and even that is rarely considered as a possible carbon reduction policy. In the meantime, providing people with alternatives to carbon intensive activities like driving cars is a very reasonable start. It is not as if I am suggesting this is the one solution, but it is part of an overall strategy to reduce our reliance on cars that is necessary to make progress. Making communities walkable and bikeable works in tandem with increasing public transportation, and it further encourages the relocalization and revitalization of our cities and towns.
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 25, 2010
"Making communities walkable and bikeable works in tandem with increasing public transportation, and it further encourages the relocalization and revitalization of our cities and towns."
Communities are already walkable and bikeable (Really? "Not walkable"? Have you ever heard of a sidewalk?). As I said, bike-lanes are feel-good do-nothing public projects. Not a single person is going to start walking or biking everywhere just because the city puts in a bike lane. Not one. Probably 20,000 motorists are inconvenienced and jammed up every morning on the east side because of the ridiculous bike lanes the city put in already, which barely anybody uses and certainly nobody who wasn't already biking. This leads to: higher carbon emissions.
I'm interested in real solutions like nuclear power or a controlled release of sulphur into the atmosphere, which many top scientists are getting behind. These silly progressive feel-good projects are just a waste of everyone's time and money, and half the time they turn out to be counterproductive because of unforeseen consequences.
Communities are already walkable and bikeable (Really? "Not walkable"? Have you ever heard of a sidewalk?). As I said, bike-lanes are feel-good do-nothing public projects. Not a single person is going to start walking or biking everywhere just because the city puts in a bike lane. Not one. Probably 20,000 motorists are inconvenienced and jammed up every morning on the east side because of the ridiculous bike lanes the city put in already, which barely anybody uses and certainly nobody who wasn't already biking. This leads to: higher carbon emissions.
I'm interested in real solutions like nuclear power or a controlled release of sulphur into the atmosphere, which many top scientists are getting behind. These silly progressive feel-good projects are just a waste of everyone's time and money, and half the time they turn out to be counterproductive because of unforeseen consequences.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Contrarian View, February 25, 2010
Now that "climate change" has been exposed as a politically and financially motivated fraud of a magnitude that dwarfs Bernie Madoff's wildest dreams, aren't you concerned that you are wasting your time with this?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Abel Collins, February 25, 2010
@contrarian view
When climate change has been exposed as a fraud, I will be concerned. Regrettably, that is not going to happen. I encourage you to open your eyes to the increasingly unstable and warmer weather that the world has been experiencing over the past decade. This is just the beginning. "Climate gate" is the real fraud.
@deusex
I have heard of sidewalks, and I would like to see more of them. Have you been to the suburbs lately? Walking and biking are actively discouraged by the way we develop land and plan our communities. I think your cynicism is blinding you to reality. Why do you believe no one would change their transportation behavior if they were presented with more options? People demonstrably use alternatives to cars where they are available.
When climate change has been exposed as a fraud, I will be concerned. Regrettably, that is not going to happen. I encourage you to open your eyes to the increasingly unstable and warmer weather that the world has been experiencing over the past decade. This is just the beginning. "Climate gate" is the real fraud.
@deusex
I have heard of sidewalks, and I would like to see more of them. Have you been to the suburbs lately? Walking and biking are actively discouraged by the way we develop land and plan our communities. I think your cynicism is blinding you to reality. Why do you believe no one would change their transportation behavior if they were presented with more options? People demonstrably use alternatives to cars where they are available.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Todd Giroux, February 25, 2010
Facts :
1. Gasoline weights 6.2 pounds per gallon
2. For every gram of gasoline to burn require 14
grams of oxygen , not just atmoshphere.
3. A 20 gallon gas tank requires enough oxygen to
fill a 2,500 sq. ft. house, again oxygen only
4. Only 21 % of atmosphere actually contains Oxygen.
5. So the volume of atmosphere that touches each
inefficienly burned fossil fuel is about 300
gallons of atmosphere per gallon.. They teach
that in drivers Education..
The problem will not go away unless we address these issues.. Lets say you leave the cap on some food.. it gets moldy and thrives.. eventually it all dies without new nourishmen. Mold, bacteria and virus consume the host environment exponentially until the end of its population. I suggest mold doesn't blog, war or pay taxes.. mostly likely it lives in peace until its dead.. one would asperate to the genetic perfection of mold..
Apparently the only emmission from some is their ommission of to do the right thing..
I am sure there are those that visit the big concrete city to gaze upon the beauty of industrial wasteland and admire the sunset of industrial haze..
I prefer preserving the trees and natural vistas and of course not polluting the food supply with acid rain and the air we breath with the black soot found on buildings.
1. Gasoline weights 6.2 pounds per gallon
2. For every gram of gasoline to burn require 14
grams of oxygen , not just atmoshphere.
3. A 20 gallon gas tank requires enough oxygen to
fill a 2,500 sq. ft. house, again oxygen only
4. Only 21 % of atmosphere actually contains Oxygen.
5. So the volume of atmosphere that touches each
inefficienly burned fossil fuel is about 300
gallons of atmosphere per gallon.. They teach
that in drivers Education..
The problem will not go away unless we address these issues.. Lets say you leave the cap on some food.. it gets moldy and thrives.. eventually it all dies without new nourishmen. Mold, bacteria and virus consume the host environment exponentially until the end of its population. I suggest mold doesn't blog, war or pay taxes.. mostly likely it lives in peace until its dead.. one would asperate to the genetic perfection of mold..
Apparently the only emmission from some is their ommission of to do the right thing..
I am sure there are those that visit the big concrete city to gaze upon the beauty of industrial wasteland and admire the sunset of industrial haze..
I prefer preserving the trees and natural vistas and of course not polluting the food supply with acid rain and the air we breath with the black soot found on buildings.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Contrarian View, February 25, 2010
I understand your point. I see that no amount or quality of evidence can shake your faith in the religion of global warming. Therefore there is no use in debating it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mach, February 25, 2010
While I tend to agree with your sentiment regarding how practical bike lanes are, I think you miss the mark regarding "walk-able" cities. A "walk-able" city is more than just one with sidewalks - pedestrian traffic patterns need to be optimized (just as vehicular traffic patterns do), crossings need to be available, and space needs to be available to utilize connecting modes of transit. Also, since we'd like to think we have some foresight on occassion, your standard sidewalk is often times inadequate for any decent volume of pedestrian traffic once all the parking meters, fire hydrants, streetsigns, trash cans, and lunchboards are in place. Making a city walk-able takes effort, not just a rough path and a set of legs.
Bike lanes are, IMHO, largely unnecessary if both bikers and vehicles follow traffic rules. But since bikers don't like to follow traffic rules (to bikers red lights apparently mean "go if you think you can make it," turn signals are nonexistent, road lanes have no meaning, and mirrors are rare) there are issues. A more conscientious approach to driving and biking would do better than a bike path though.
Bike lanes are, IMHO, largely unnecessary if both bikers and vehicles follow traffic rules. But since bikers don't like to follow traffic rules (to bikers red lights apparently mean "go if you think you can make it," turn signals are nonexistent, road lanes have no meaning, and mirrors are rare) there are issues. A more conscientious approach to driving and biking would do better than a bike path though.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Abel Collins, February 25, 2010
@contrarian view
How would you know? You didn't offer any evidence, quality or no. For your information, my faith resides in what my senses tell me and the theories that best explain those observations.
How would you know? You didn't offer any evidence, quality or no. For your information, my faith resides in what my senses tell me and the theories that best explain those observations.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Barry, February 25, 2010
Even aside from carbon emissions, bike and pedestrian infrastructure that promotes more walking and biking is a good idea for many other reasons including better health through exercise, saving money that would otherwise go to OPEC and out of state oil giants, reducing conventional pollution, reducing congestion for the benefit of those who must drive, and, it is fun!
Besides sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes where appropriate, it would also help if laws against dangerous driving were enforced, snow removal strategies included keeping sidewalks, crosswalks and bus shelters clear, and roadway shoulders were swept clear of debris.
Besides sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes where appropriate, it would also help if laws against dangerous driving were enforced, snow removal strategies included keeping sidewalks, crosswalks and bus shelters clear, and roadway shoulders were swept clear of debris.
-
- +3
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 25, 2010
Barry, you sound like the worst kind of politician. When somebody has to reach and exaggerate that much, I know what they are proposing is a load of bunk. Do bicycle lanes make my teeth whiter too? I've received internet pop-up ads that were more credibile than your pitches. I repeat, not one person will start riding their bike or walking everywhere because a bike lane is installed. Not one.
If the people supporting this nonsense do get their way, please name it after the politician who sponsors it, because we would like to know who we should be cursing when we are stuck in one-lane traffic jams on the way to school or work each morning as the bike lanes sit empty.
If the people supporting this nonsense do get their way, please name it after the politician who sponsors it, because we would like to know who we should be cursing when we are stuck in one-lane traffic jams on the way to school or work each morning as the bike lanes sit empty.
-
- +1
-
-
written by PinkHatLib, February 25, 2010
Next warm spring day, take yourself over to the East Bay Bike Path and then tell me that public projects have no effect on behavior. Anecdotally, I have heard from a number of folks in the neighborhood that they would bike more if they felt safer (usually those who've moved here from bike friendly cities elsewhere).
I take it you've never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam?
I take it you've never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam?
-
- +1
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 25, 2010
Pinkhat, how many of those people are going to work or to the supermarket? Probably none. Those people are biking for exercise or recreation, and they would do it regardless of whether there is a bike path or not. In other words, the bike is not an economic substitute for those people's cars. To think that putting bike paths in Providence will reduce carbon emissions is progressive fantasy.
To answer your question, I have never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam.
To answer your question, I have never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jonathanlyle, February 25, 2010
Abel, I appreciate your goals and your obvious efforts to succeed at those goals - working for the Sierra Club, blogging, public presentations, etcetera. I have seen you in action, and Providence is lucky to have you around.
As for the negativity in response to bike paths or pedestrian accessibility I say this - you are talking out your tailpipe. It is a new phenomenon that cities have been designed with the automobile as the primary form of transit. It wasn't until the 1950's that cars really took hold to produce much of what we see today. The problem, however, is not the automobile per se - though it has exacerbated many of our ills. The problem is the lack of choices that are available to us to move throughout the city. I don't want to take the car away from DeusEx, if he/she wants to sit in traffic an average of 40 hours per year, or spend $9000/year average for mobility, that is their prerogative. What we need is choices.
I would like the option to ride my bike into town on a nice day, or to walk, or to ride an efficient public transit system that may include trolleys, leaving my car at home. Or, even better, I would like to save $9000 a year and sell my car. Yes it will be a mind shift for many of us. We've grown up with the automobile and it's promises. But many have realized (as early as the 1960s) that cars are not the only answer.
As for the negativity in response to bike paths or pedestrian accessibility I say this - you are talking out your tailpipe. It is a new phenomenon that cities have been designed with the automobile as the primary form of transit. It wasn't until the 1950's that cars really took hold to produce much of what we see today. The problem, however, is not the automobile per se - though it has exacerbated many of our ills. The problem is the lack of choices that are available to us to move throughout the city. I don't want to take the car away from DeusEx, if he/she wants to sit in traffic an average of 40 hours per year, or spend $9000/year average for mobility, that is their prerogative. What we need is choices.
I would like the option to ride my bike into town on a nice day, or to walk, or to ride an efficient public transit system that may include trolleys, leaving my car at home. Or, even better, I would like to save $9000 a year and sell my car. Yes it will be a mind shift for many of us. We've grown up with the automobile and it's promises. But many have realized (as early as the 1960s) that cars are not the only answer.
-
- +1
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 25, 2010
Jon, what you present as a "choice" is actually coercion. Nothing is stopping people from riding their bikes now. Bikes are already allowed on the roads and motorists are required to yield to them when appropriate and operate their vehicles safely around them. What we are talking about is changing the roads themselves to accommodate a very small group of people at the expense of everyone else who uses a car to get to work or run errands. Very few people will "make the switch" just because a designated bike lane is present. Restructuring the roads in this way will take extra time and money and interferes with the flow of traffic by removing lanes and making right turns extremely awkward and in my opinion more dangerous for everybody. The bike lanes create congestion, which has been proven again and again to increase carbon emissions and greatly increase the number of accidents.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jonathanlyle, February 25, 2010
DeusEx,
I don't know where you get the time to make all these comments. Perhaps you should go out and make some positive changes instead of the negativity I see in your comments around the blog.
As for your comments: it is, at the least, uncomfortable to ride a bike in vehicular traffic. The weight to size ratio is greatly unbalanced and in any accident involving a bike and a car, I would have to bet on the car to come out ahead. What you are talking about is correct - bikes should be able to ride comfortably with cars. That is my goal as well. But you are wrong in your statement about who is accommodating what. Currently we are accommodating the automobile without regards to the multiple of options that could be available to us. You want to see how it can work? Go down to NY City. They have taken vehicle traffic out of Times Square and created a network of bike lanes that allow the multiplicity of rider levels comfort with riding around the city. Both have been a huge success.
Your statements are just incorrect with no data to back them. Show me the data in this statement: "Very few people will "make the switch" , or perhaps in this:"Restructuring the roads in this way will take extra time and money and interferes with the flow of traffic."
Your tailpipe is blowing hot air!
I don't know where you get the time to make all these comments. Perhaps you should go out and make some positive changes instead of the negativity I see in your comments around the blog.
As for your comments: it is, at the least, uncomfortable to ride a bike in vehicular traffic. The weight to size ratio is greatly unbalanced and in any accident involving a bike and a car, I would have to bet on the car to come out ahead. What you are talking about is correct - bikes should be able to ride comfortably with cars. That is my goal as well. But you are wrong in your statement about who is accommodating what. Currently we are accommodating the automobile without regards to the multiple of options that could be available to us. You want to see how it can work? Go down to NY City. They have taken vehicle traffic out of Times Square and created a network of bike lanes that allow the multiplicity of rider levels comfort with riding around the city. Both have been a huge success.
Your statements are just incorrect with no data to back them. Show me the data in this statement: "Very few people will "make the switch" , or perhaps in this:"Restructuring the roads in this way will take extra time and money and interferes with the flow of traffic."
Your tailpipe is blowing hot air!
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 25, 2010
I won't respond to all the ad hominem nonsense, but on the issue at hand, what I will say is that I don't view efficiency, practicality, or saving tax payer money to be "negativity."
Yeah, jon, because Providence is exactly the same as Manhattan... which had a 23% household car ownership rate in 2000. Get real.
Yeah, jon, because Providence is exactly the same as Manhattan... which had a 23% household car ownership rate in 2000. Get real.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jonathanlyle, February 25, 2010
Still no data other than proof that a municipality with excellent transit choices has reduced household car ownership? That supports my argument.
-
- +0
-
-
written by DeusEx, February 25, 2010
Actually it doesn't. What it proves is that the disruption caused to motorists by putting bike paths in an area with extremely low car ownership is minimal, which is exactly what one would expect. The validity of my argument, that in an area with an extremely high car ownership rate putting in bike paths would be a major disruption, is unaffected by your anecdote either way. Lack of data != you win, in fact, the burden is really on your side to support the public works projects you are proposing.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
With regard to bike lanes, all they do is create more traffic (more carbon emissions and less productivity). They are the epitome of feel-good, do-nothing public projects. Do you really think somebody is going to start biking to work instead of driving their car just because the city puts in a bike lane? That's lunacy, even for the green movement. The bike lanes they put in on the east side are an eyesore and they mostly go unused. People are gonna start walking everywhere all of a sudden (what's stopping them now?) They are a laughing stock when residents aren't cursing them for taking up valuable lanes and making passing impossible on streets that already have artificially low speed limits.