Started up a new project recently to estimate traffic flows.  Our first question is to extract truck traffic estimates from those estimates.  For something that costs so much money and is such a large part of the economy, it always surprises me how little accurate information is collected about traffic.  While freeways have reasonable coverage in California, streets are, for the most part, only monitored using periodic census counts.  Doing better than that costs lots of money, and collecting better data probably won’t make things a heck of a lot better, and *will* expose more about people’s trips (speed, origin, destination), so nothing will likely happen.

Also, while I’m not at all trolling for blog comments, I find it funny that people get worked up about automatic speed traps and so on.  Speed limits are usually set at prevailing, safe speeds.  If people are exceeding the speed limit, they are breaking the law and should be ticketed.  If they have a problem with that, they should lobby their elected representatives to get the speed limits raised.   As a bicycler, I’m usually put in the most danger not by fast moving cars, but rather by people who are exceeding the speed limit.  Those men and women are moving too fast given the conditions on the road to see and react to my bike.  I cycle pretty defensively, so it hasn’t been a problem yet.  Biking on a road with a fast speed limit usually isn’t a problem because that means the road is wide and sight lines are good.

I’m not saying that it isn’t freaky to bicycle on a road with a speed limit of 50mph.  I’m just saying that it is much safer than riding on a quite side street by my house (speed limits 25 to 30mph) and having some soccer mom come roaring along at 45mph.

I say track all traffic via GPS in license plates, and mail out speeding tickets on an annual basis when you get your license renewed.

My goodness maglev PRT is an astoundingly stupid idea.

So I was writing an email and considering the different strengths of Transims/Matsim vs a microsimulator, and I wrote that Transims can help us analyze big policy questions like what if we replaced all of the freeways with bike lanes.There’s a wacky idea.  But it would make a very interesting policy analysis.  What if there were no more freeways, but instead if the freeways were forbidden to cars but allowed bikes an pedestrians.  Absolute mayhem, of course, and not for a moment would any sane person do that, but that’s what makes it such an interesting exercise.

First, all passenger car traffic would get diverted to streets.  All long distance trips by car would immediately be out of the question, as it would take forever to get anywhere.  On the other hand, long distance trips by bike are suddenly possible, so we could visit Grandma’s house (40 miles away) by bike.

On the other hand, what about all the freight?  Where would the trucks go?  And how would long distance trips happen?  Would special car rental depots spring up at the edges of cities for people to rent a car for the line haul from the edge of one town to the next?

And any simulation model that didn’t incorporate freight, transit, bikes, pedestrians, and vehicles would immediately break when trying to answer such questions.

I don’t understand how car sharing can be profitable.  You run into the same problem that public transit has—expensive vehicles with a long life offered to a people who could buy or lease their own car.  While the cars are shiny and new now, in 5 years they will not be.  Perhaps the zip-car’s of the world buy new cars regularly, and sell their old cars used.

On the other hand, the shared bike market looks better, especially considering that the two biggest players (from a quick search of the internet) are advertisers (JCDecaux and Clear Channel). They sell minicipalities a shared bike system in return for advertising space.  The capital costs are low, and the risks are therefore minimal.  Insurance is probably higher in North America with our crazy high speed limits in cities, but probably on-par with running a car sharing program.

And when you tot up the cost of going green, the bike share program really shines.  A fleet of 10 electric hybrid cars would be a huge capital investment, and would help, oh, 20 people (being generous) give up their internal combustion engine vehicles.  For the same money, presuming $40k per car (the Chevy Volt is supposed to be $35k, so add tax and more mark up and round off) you get $400k.  How to spend this on a bike scheme?  while the bikes are cheaper, you’d have to spend more on locking infrastructure. Still, supposing the costs are too outrageous, you could buy 200 bikes at $500 each and still have $300k left over for the “stations.”  The DC plan charges a nominal fee of $40 per year per subscriber.  The JCDecaux approach charges a few bucks per rental for an hour or so, then adds charges for more time, the idea being you can get anywhere you need to be withing a half hour, so keep that free and then get the bike back into circulation.  Oh, and you’d need a van or two to help out with circulation of bikes (driving them back uphill!), so subtract $20k from the $300k for infrastructure.

At the very least, perhaps this could help people leave their cars in the parking lot when they go to lunch.

But of course, our roads in SoCal are designed for cars, not bikes.

I just read part two of an article in the OC Register (right wing wacko rag) that seemed to backpedal (no pun intended) a bit from part one in which the author (I did not read part one) appeared to complain about a share the road campaign along Pacific Coast Highway.

I wanted to submit a response, but the filter refused, first complaining about punctuation, and then complaining about the length. So nevermind, I’ll post my response here.

The original article is here. My response is as follows, without proper commas and so on because I can’t be bothered putting them back in after stripping them so assiduously.

I hate bicycling in Orange County. But I will continue to do so because I can and therefore cannot justify the wastefulness of driving. My hope is that others might also follow my example and get out of their cars as well.

I think a fundamental flaw in traffic engineering in California in general and LA and OC in particular is the goal of increasing driving speed. Take for example the city of Irvine with wide bike lanes in abundance. Many of these lanes are on roads with 50 plus speed limits. There is no real reason to have such high speed limits other than the notion that cars should go as fast as is safely practical. So the bike lanes become car lane placeholders empty of bikes because the cars go too fast.

In contrast consider Amsterdam. Its a major metropolis with incredibly busy streets. But the streets are flooded with bicycles and no one sees any need or logic in wearing a helmet. Cars expect bikes speed limits are low and the likelihood that a 3000 pound car colliding with a bike is slim. And if the collision does occur it is likely to be at low speed and non fatal.

I was just reading today about a movement to remove all traffic control hardware and signage from city streets. Also in Europe but this may appeal to the far right libertarians in your readership. The idea is not to cause anarchy in the streets but to encourage traveler to traveler communication. The only traffic law is to yield to the right. A platoon of cars could get together and blitz through the streets just as a peleton of bikes could. But both would pass by soon enough and everybody else would be forced to proceed at a moderate pace and watch out for vehicles on the right at intersections.

And finally I have been thinking about your interpretation of the law that bikes must “ride as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway”. Notice that the law avoids any mention of how far this distance is just as it avoids specifying how much clearance a passing vehicle must leave. Before you write another column on bicycling please get on a bike and ride one. I suggest a block or two on Harbor Boulevard on the street (because riding on the sidewalk is illegal). I would suggest anywhere from Newport Boulevard to the 405. As you ride remember that car doors might get opened up at any time. Consider a “practicable” distance that allows for an opening car door. Also note the speed of the cars passing you. Also note the atrocious condition of the roadway along the curb. Even if you see a crack in the pavement or glass in the street for a week or more it might still be there today. You really do not want to pop a tire and crash on Harbor Boulevard.

To me as close as practicable usually means leaving a foot or two between me and the curb, and about a yard to any parked vehicle unless I can clearly see that no one is in the driver’s seat. On Harbor I have to trim that to one foot, or else I have to really get out into the lane and prevent cars from sideswiping me. That is if I ever have the misfortune of needing to travel on Harbor Boulevard.

There is also a line in the California Vehicle Code that reads that bicycles may take up an entire lane if the lane is of substandard width such that cars and bikes cannot share the lane at the same time. As you bike along Harbor think about whether cars and bikes can share the lane safely or whether you should exercise your right to take up the entire lane.

End of rant. I really am a bicycle nut, but I tend to be a quite one. But annoying articles like that one by earnest drivers looking to save the bicyclists (and doom the planet) get me irritated.