Charles Redell

Shared by Charlie
This makes my heart sing.

Concept coat collects rain in its large collar, filters it through charcoal, and stores it around your hips to satisfy your thirst. Who needs water fountains when you can wear your own water collector?

Originally posted at Crave

There are many lessons to learn from this weekend’s closure of I-405 in Los Angeles. Perhaps our cities are not as dependent of freeways as we thought. Perhaps bicycling really is a viable (and fun!) means of transportation in our cities. Maybe our tendency to go into a collective hysteria over changes to our roadways is unnecessary and pessimistic.

Here’s what happened in LA this weekend: One of our nation’s busiest freeways was scheduled to be closed mid-Friday through mid-Monday (it actually reopened 17 hours ahead of time). The mayor was telling people to stay home all weekend. The transportation department and the media built the weekend up to be “Carmageddon.” The hysteria grew to the point that Jet Blue started offering $4 flights from and airport in Burbank to one in Long Beach, effectively flying over the sure-to-be chaos on the streets below.

Well, the Jet Blue flight pushed people over the edge. Tom Vanderbilt (author of “Traffic” and writer for Slate) tweeted that he wondered if some people riding bicycles couldn’t beat an airplane across town. As you might expect, there happened to be a group of bike riders up for that challenge (see his excellent write-up about the event for Slate).

And thus #FlightVsBike began. In the end, one group (which included Bike Commute News’ Joe Anthony) drove to the airport, got on the plane and took a cab to the finish, one group rode bicycles, at least one person took public transit, a TV news crew drove their van and one person rollerbladed. The TV news crew got there first, finding the other freeways in the area practically empty, followed by the people riding bikes, then taking transit, then rollerblading, then finally by airplane.

In fact, the people riding bikes arrived in half the time it took to go through security, fly, then take a cab. Granted, they were a crew a fast, fit cyclists (though, for the record, they were riding legally and obeying all traffic rules). But even a person on rollerblades beat the plane, suggesting that even a more leisurely-paced person on a bicycle would have been competitive with the airplane.

Isn’t that empowering? That’s what I loved so much about this twist on the transportation mode challenge: The element of flight, jet fuel, hubris, imagination. I mean, who hasn’t been sitting in a traffic jam day dreaming of just lifting off and flying over the cars to get to your destination? Flying within your city is straight out of the Jetsons.

But if we get our heads out of the clouds, we can see that we have the power to get where we need to go using our feet and a clever, simple machine invented over a century ago.

Another lesson from Carmageddon shouldn’t be new here in Seattle, but it seems we could use a little refresher. THERE WAS NO CARMAGEDDON. They closed the highway and … it was fine. People figured out other ways to get what they needed done. It was such a non-issue that I hope some people are beginning to question whether they really needed a highway expansion in the first place.

As West Seattle Blog pointed out on Twitter: “LA’s Carmageddon-not is no surprise if you “lived through” Seattle’s Freeway Fright ’07.” Here’s a quote from an interesting post from WSB in ’07:

The state still promises it’ll all be over by this time tomorrow; all we’ll have to show for it is a slightly smoother drive on part of 5, and the knowledge we are flexible enough to try alternative means of commuting when we absolutely have to.

Look, the Seattle region needs to get even more brave. Carmageddon and Seattle’s so-called “Freeway Fright” show us that we are smart, adaptable people who can find our ways around obstacles to get where we’re going. Meanwhile, we have state and regional environmental goals that we are simply not going to reach unless we make a choice to do something. We also have an ever-growing population without room for more cars in our city (no matter how many highway lanes there are). The number of people riding bicycles is booming, the number of people taking transit is overwhelming and the number of people choosing to drive has gone down consistently for a decade and a half. That’s right, population is rising and the total amount of driving is going down. That means the regional driving rate is plummeting.

To date, this is the only argument I have heard in defense of the state’s $2 billion (at least) deep bore tunnel downtown: We are afraid there will be gridlock without it.

We know better. If LA can do entirely without I-405 and Seattle can handle a dramatically-reduced I-5, I think we can handle a state highway without a $5/day downtown bypass tunnel expected to carry a measly 40,000 cars per day. We are creative, smart and empowered people. We don’t need to let fear drive us to sacrifice $2 billion at the altar of the state highway gods in a desperate prayer that this plan — which has no evidence to suggest it will work — will deliver us from a future where some of us might have to change some of our habits. In fact, the state’s own environmental impact study is having a hard time demonstrating the plan will be any better than simply tearing down the viaduct and doing nothing to replace it.

The majority of our state, county and city politicians are telling us that we cannot live without a Hwy 99 freeway downtown. This unfounded pessimism is not the kind of leadership we need. We absolutely can make positive changes in our personal lives and change the shape of the city while we do it. Perhaps some City Council hopefuls will find success by spreading a message of empowerment and optimism.

This calls for a drink.

Shared by Charlie
I'm sharing this as an example of how short-sighted Rs are being and to test to see whether or not a shared item on Reader makes it to g+.

The House is voting today on amendments to an energy and water-related appropriations bill, with Republican leaders proposing to cut billions of dollars in funds for renewable energy and Democrats attempting to shift funds from fossil energy research into clean energy.

Republican proposals include cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from renewable energy R&D programs. Amendments on the table include:

• An amendment by Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. to reduce funding provided for energy efficiency projects related to clean vehicle technology by $27 million.

• An amendment by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., to reduce funding for energy efficiency programs related to new vehicle technology by $46 million.

• An amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett, R-NJ, to reduce funding in the bill provided for energy related research and science by $500 million.

• An amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., to reduce funding in the bill provided for solar power research and development by $166 million.

Democratic amendments include increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy funding by moving funds from nuclear and fossil energy programs.

• An amendment by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $100 million. The increase would be offset by reducing funding for nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy research by $50 million each.

• An amendment by Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Va., to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $46 million. The increase would be offset by reducing funding for fossil fuel energy research by $99 million

• An amendment by Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $24 million. The increase would be offset by reducing funding for fossil fuel energy and research by $50 million.

Before his amendment to cut $3 billion from energy research failed last night, California Republican Tom McClintock was quoted by The Hill as saying renewable energy technologies were “dubious” and that government programs are  “not funding the most viable research into these technologies….Private capital beats a path to the door of viable technology.”

In fact, that is exactly what is happening in the clean energy space.

That “viability” is why JP Morgan has invested over $3 billion in renewable energy projects; why GE invested $6 billion in the sector last year alone; why Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Bank of America are building massive solar projects to supplement their energy-efficiency efforts; and why corporate heavyweights like Alstom, Areva, CH2M HILL, Google, Johnson Controls, Mitsubishi, and Siemens are building their cleantech businesses with fervor.

The outcome of today’s vote has major implications for America’s energy future. The debate over energy priorities in the House comes at a time when developing countries, led by China, have surpassed industrialized nations like the U.S. in clean energy investment.

If the U.S. drastically cuts R&D funding and fails to extend federal tax credits by the end of this year, many of the largest private companies investing in clean energy will have plenty of other leading countries in which to do business.

Accidental Hedonist, the Seattle-based food blog by Kate Hopkins, had a smart post recently about “everybody’s favorite post-modern politician, Sarah Palin,” who has relentlessly attacked Michelle Obama for her campaign to teach kids healthy eating habits, accusing the First Lady of trying to “ban dessert.”

Noting, as many others have, that Palin is both incorrect (Obama isn’t trying to ban dessert, nor did the Pennsylvania Department of Education try to ban cookies, as Palin has also erroneously claimed) and misguided (obesity and diabetes rates have skyrocketed in tandem with kids’ consumption of processed junk food), Hopkins points out that even if you agree that families should decide what kids eat, only informed, engaged families are equipped to do so.

An individual or family that is engaged in food choices generally can pick and choose healthy meals.

The key phrase above is “An individual or family that is engaged in food choices.” Because once a person stops being engaged (however that manifests itself), then societal influences will take over. And the biggest influence upon us is marketing, in all of its guises, direct and indirect.

Think you can’t be fooled by marketing? Then let me ask you the following questions -

1) Is Frappuccino a coffee?
2) Is Gatorade healthy?
3) Why do doctors recommend 8 glasses of water a day?
4) Which item is more important in nutrition – Fiber, Carbohydrates, or Protein?
5) Which is more nutritious – organically grown spinach, or spinach that was grown via means used by Agri-business?
6) How healthy is a Vegan Diet?

I’ll give my version of the answers on Monday, only for a point of completion, but if you came up with a one sentence answer for any of them, it’s likely wrong (again, I’ll clarify on Monday).

My point here is that most quality information on food is highly nuanced, to the point where it requires much more than a 30 second commercial, or certainly a ten second decision in the grocery aisle, to be of any worth.

People like Sarah Palin, in other words, aren’t just pro-junk (and, by implication, -processed) food; they’re actually anti-information: They would rather have kids scarfing down Fritos and Pop-Tarts than give them the tools to make healthier choices.

Shared by Charlie
AWESOME. Yet another reason to use Chrome.

Here’s another reason that the Seattle City Council should not sign off on the state’s deep-bore tunnel agreement: the promised transit funding commitment is still missing.

Because the tunnel agreement’s cost overrun provision is so convoluted, it’s easier for Seattle City Council members to equivocate. In contrast, nearly everyone agrees that we need more transit to create a sustainable Seattle. So why has the Council so far failed to stand up for Seattle’s interests on this?

The original deep-bore agreement signed by Governor Gregoire, former King County Executive Ron Sims, and former mayor Greg Nickels included $190 million for transit, but the state did not follow through on granting authority for the MVET tax to raise those funds.

Expanded transit is not just window dressing for the tunnel plan. It is a necessary part of the package because the tunnel has a lower capacity than the existing viaduct, and it has no downtown exits. King County Metro estimated that the tunnel would create demand for an additional 17,000 transit trips.

Every member of the Seattle City Council talks the talk about the importance of transit—that’s easy to do because transit is widely supported by Seattleites. Yet last Fall the Council unanimously approved the preliminary deep-bore tunnel agreement without a transit component.

The City Council is expected to vote on the latest version of the deep-bore tunnel agreement within the next couple of weeks. Currently, there is no language in the agreement that addresses funding for transit. Analogous to the case of the cost overrun provision, this is the last opportunity the city has for leverage to push for a transit funding commitment to be included.

Hello, City Council, anybody home?

And what does our state leader’s failure to honor their word on transit say about how they are likely to treat Seattle when it comes to cost overruns?

(P.S. Thanks to an anonymous friend for pitching this angle.)

Photo from seattletransitblog.com

Seattle Transit Blog’s Martin H. Duke posted a short anecdote last weekend about his experiences as a brand-new bike commuter (he started riding two weeks ago). Duke focuses primarily on how he, a regular transit rider, started biking to make one leg of his commute faster and easier. The importance of multi-modal commuting cannot be understated, particularly in Seattle where hills are often a legitimate barrier to bicycling. But it was Duke’s second point that really stuck out.

He wrote:

It’s important to note what a casual rider like me is willing to do. I have no interest in buying hundreds of dollars of equipment (I spent less than $150 on bike, helmet, and lock combined; thanks, Bikeworks). I had no interest in having to change or shower at the end of the ride, since that would annihilate the time savings; that ruled out buying an outfit or crossing the lake.

Duke is a person who rides a bike, not a cyclist. Though there’s always the chance that he’ll fall in love with cycling and its many subcultures (I never could have predicated my future obsession with all things cycling when I first bought a used bike in college), it’s just as likely that he will continue to see bikes as a tool and not an identity. That’s exactly what we need.

If bicycling is going to become a viable mode of transportation, bicycles need to be seen as a means of conveyance, not an entry point to a lifestyle that requires specialized clothing, new lingo, or dedication to a particular political ideology. Fair or not, that image compounds some people’s reluctance to start riding.

Driving, walking, and transit riding aren’t cultural identifiers like bicycling. I doubt there are many people who, asked to describe themselves, would respond “driver.” Bicycling needs to be the same way if it’s going to be embraced by a broad audience.

There are a number of reasons cycling is seen as an identity, not a mode. With a very small share of the transportation system (just 0.5 percent of trips nationally and 2.9 percent of trips in Seattle), bicycling is always going to be seen as more “fringe” than ubiquitous modes like driving and transit. As bicycling becomes more commonplace, it will lose some of that baggage, but that’s years if not decades away.

But there are a few things we can do in meantime:

Support bicycling publications that focus on bicycling as transportation, such as Momentum Magazine and Urban Velo. Both magazines are young (and underfunded), so the quality leaves a little to be desired. But the majority of cycling magazines are dedicated to racing and the latest, greatest equipment—perpetuating the false notion that you need a race bike, cycling shoes, and a full-spandex kit every time you ride.

Continue building pragmatic bicycle infrastructure, particularly on arterial routes and routes that connect neighborhoods to transit. The more people who ride, the safer and more acceptable bicycling becomes. In order for that to happen, bicycling (or bicycling combined with transit) needs to be the easiest mode for short trips. Those Dutch commuters in the video we posted Friday aren’t riding for altruistic reasons. They’re riding because it’s easy and practical.

As STB’s Adam Parast showed with his bikeability study, Seattle has islands of good bikeability (typically around urban centers) that need to be connected. For fitter bike riders, these islands can be connected by infrastructure on the most direct routes, which are also typically the flattest. Road diets seem to work wonders on arterials. For less-fit riders, we need good infrastructure connecting those bikeable islands to transit. Everyone who can ride a bike can ride two miles to the bus or train station. Infrastructure will insure that that’s the safe, easy, practical thing to do.

None of this is to say that cycling culture is bad. I love the culture, gear, racing, and history of the bicycle. But those things aren’t going to attract the Martin Dukes of the world. The bicycle as a pragmatic transportation tool will.

Shared by Charlie
Bring bike share to Seattle!

Bike-sharing programs have exploded in popularity over the last decade. Worldwide, there are more than 160 programs, most of them in Europe. Bike sharing works as an extension to mass transit, a quick and efficient (and clean) way to complete the last leg of a journey around an urban core.

There’s been talk of building a bike share in Seattle for a while now, with good reason. Seattle is bike-friendly, loves its green image, and has business, tourism, and sporting events within an extremely bikeable area. Those plans, predictably, have been hampered by a lack of funding.

However, a recent UW study bolsters the case for giving Seattle a bike share. This past January, the Seattle Department of Transportation contracted a group of University of Washington Urban Design and Planning grad students to do the Seattle Bike-Share Feasibility Study. Two of the group’s members, Daniel Rowe and Jennifer Gregerson, presented their findings and conclusions to the Seattle Bike Advisory Board last night.

The group divided the city into 10-square-meter cells and scored each cell based on 12 indicators, including population density, job and retail density, tourist attractions, bike friendly streets, and regional and local transit stops. They used those scores to predict demand for bikes and draft a theoretical plan for phasing in a bike-sharing program. Unsurprisingly, downtown did the best, so the planners suggested launching a bike share there.

The study estimates a daily demand of between 2,620 and 5,460 trips. To meet that demand, phase one would have to include between 790 and 980 bikes. The second phase would extend the service area north into Queen Anne, Fremont, Ballard, Wallingford, the U District, and north into Georgetown, and Beacon Hill, increasing demand by between 1,860 and 3,820 trips a day and requiring an additional 1,150 to 1,270 bikes. The final phase would add pockets of service in far south and north Seattle and West Seattle, increasing demand by 280 to 580 trips and requiring 380 or so bikes.

The study touches on some potential obstacles to starting a bike share in Seattle, including the city’s helmet law, permitting and zoning for bike share stations, and potential conflicts with pedestrians (new bike users have a tendency to ride on the sidewalk).

Biking is, without a doubt, the fastest way to get anywhere between South Lake Union and the stadiums, especially once you factor in things like traffic, wait time on the bus, and the search for parking in a car. Convenience aside, it’s also healthy and fun—and you get to avoid the inevitable foibles of bus riding, like smelly, loud people and (particularly for women) harassment and tacky pick-up lines.

Obviously, a bike sharing program wouldn’t directly benefit existing cyclists like me. But a bike share would get more riders on the street (thousands, if the study is accurate), and any increase in riders improves visibility and reduces the number of cars on the road. It would also introduce new riders to bike commuting, some of whom would no doubt fall in love with it and buy their own bikes. Another very real benefit is the possibility of getting visitors (or even bikeless friends) on bikes for trips around town. There are plenty of places that do daily bike rentals in town, but they’re expensive; bike sharing programs, in contrast, tend to cost no more than a few bucks an hour.

Right now, of course, all talk of bike sharing is completely theoretical. King County supports the idea (they held a bike share expo last August), as does the city, but both governments say they lack the funding to get a program off the ground. It will likely take significant (and vocal) public support to see a bike share program move from theory to reality.