Governor Brown pitches Sacramento’s streetcar to Trump (SacBee 2017-02-09)
we don’t need transportation “balance”
A recent post on Streetsblog, Brent Toderian: Don’t “Balance” Modes — Prioritize Walking, Biking, and Transit, is from a visit and keynote in Denver, but applies perfectly to Sacramento, and I encourage you to read and reflect.
His main point is that those calling for balancing spending on all the modes really mean “lets just keep doing what we were doing.” We have spent, in this region, trillions of dollars in support of one mode, the privately owned motor vehicle. We have spent a little on transit, and almost nothing on walking and bicycling. If we simply increase the share for transit, walking and bicycling a bit, we have not really done anything. There is a deficit in transit, walking, and bicycling that can only be overcome but shifting our spending to these modes. Every dollar spent on expanding or widening roadways and freeways for privately owned vehicles directly harms transit, walking and bicycling because it encourages and subsidizes privately owned vehicles. It encourages people to live further away from jobs and services. It induces traffic, which congests our roadways so that transit can’t work as well. It encourages inappropriate speeds that endanger walkers and bicyclists.
Before we can start doing right, creating system that truly serves people’s desires for access in livable communities, we have to stop doing what we were doing. It think we can keep doing the wrong stuff and just add in the right stuff, we are wrong. We need to stop expanding and widening roads. Now, and for ever. #NoNewRoads
News summary 2017-02-05
- Reimagine a K Street pedestrian mall (SacBee 2017-02-05)
- Storms, equipment failures contribute to mounting delays on Capitol Corridor trains (SacBee 2017-02-03)
- At Sacramento Regional Transit, the glass is half-full, but so is the rain bucket (SacBee 2017-01-30)
- Soapbox: California’s transportation funding package must do more for public transit (SacBee 2017-01-30)
- Back=Seat Driver: Heavy rains sprout potholes; here’s where to call to get them fixed (SacBee 2017-01-30); also ConnectCard, bike share, and autonomous cars
News summary 2017-01-29
- Region’s traditional malls surviving, some better than others (SacBee 2017-01-29); malls depend on greenfield development, with new, high income homes; without that they eventually fail
- Large Sacramento downtown property owners to vote on streetcar tax (SacBee 2017-01-25)
- Regional Transit caught off guard by crowds at women’s march (SacBee 2017-01-23)
- Why did Sacramento commuter train suddenly jolt? Amtrak isn’t saying (SacBee 2017-01-23)
- Pay more or move – tough choice faces UC Davis students in tight rental market (SacBee 2017-01-23); transportation and housing are intricately linked, and you can’t solve one in isolation
- Rockslide closes Lake Natoma bike trail (SacBee 2017-01-23)
News summary 2017-01-22
- California drivers: Say goodbye to the Botts Dot, the bump that made your car go thump (SacBee 2017-01-21)
- McKinley Village development will add traffic, but city says that’s OK (SacBee 2017-01-20)
- Big Placer County development gets key approval. What’s coming next. (SacBee 2017-01-17)
- Those who use California roads should pay to fix them (SacBee 2017-01-17)
- Back-Seat Driver: RT debates beer ads on buses, Sacramento targets traffic-accident injuries, and Pioneer Bridge is peeling again (SacBee 2017-01-16)
News summary 2017-01-15
A new neighborhood rises from the empty blocks of midtown’s southern edge (SacBee 2017-01-09)
News summary 2017-01-08
- Confused on how to ride your bike on city streets? There’s a class for that (SacBee 2017-01-08)
- Will Trump keep federal promises for Sacramento streetcar funding? (SacBee 2017-01-05)
- Commuter Chronicles: Transportation (Sacramento Magazine 2016-12-29)
News summary 2017-01-01
- What happened to that planned expressway through east Sacramento County? (SacBee 2017-01-01)
- Sacramento is either ‘unknown or misunderstood.’ Will that change in 2017? (SacBee 2017-01-01)
- California to drivers: Starting Sunday, don’t hold that cellphone (SacBee 2016-12-27)
News summary 2016-12-25
- City applies to federal government to allow driverless-car testing (Sacramento Business Journal 2016-12-23)
- Uber self-driving cars leave San Francisco streets for Arizona (Sacramento Business Journal 2016-12-22)
- Railroaded: City’s railyards development plan skimps on affordable homes (Sacramento News & Review 2016-12-22); without affordable housing, lower income workers are unable to live close to where they work, which has a negative impact on our transportation system and livability
- Repairs to badly damaged light-rail in Folsom could take two months (SacBee 2016-12-20)
- Back-Seat Driver: ‘Something airy looking?’ Congresswoman Matsui envisions new Sacramento River bridge (SacBee 2016-12-19)
#NoMoreUber
I have always been leery of Uber. They have seemed from the beginning like a bunch of spoiled tech brats, whose only values are innovation and profits. Their business model is to exploit the grey areas of law, and to exploit the black and white areas of law by making huge profits in the time gap between recognition and enforcement. They are really not providing a service so much as running a scam. They are scamming their drivers. They are scamming their riders. They are scamming their investors. They are scamming society as a whole by proposing that shady dealings are the future of transportation. They have been found in a number of states to be violating employment/contractor and wage laws, but they continue as though they can. And if we let them, they can indeed. The instances of discrimination against people of color and the disabled are legion. The instances of intimidation and violence against patrons by drivers who have not been sufficiently background checked are legion.
What has brought me to this point of anger, however, is their arrogant attitude about operating semi-autonomous vehicles in San Francisco. Their vehicles have been observed violating the law and endangering pedestrians and bicyclists, and the company’s response has been that things will get solved eventually, with a little engineering. They have thumbed their nose at both the state of California and the city of San Francisco, refusing to cease vehicle testing, though they have not acquired permits to do so. All the other companies have.
I’m a frequent visitor to San Francisco, and what I’ve observed when walking, bicycling and using transit is: Uber drivers making high speed right turns, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks (marked or unmarked), cutting in and out of lanes and disrupting traffic flow, greatly exceeding the speed limit, pushing bicyclists out of traffic by using their vehicles as weapons of intimidation, blocking bike lanes to pick up and drop off (legal for taxis when the client’s disability requires that, not so for Uber), blocking transit only lanes (the bus + taxis designation does not apply to Uber), circling the block waiting for rides which increases congestion and air pollution. I could go on. I’ll say that I’ve also experienced some very polite and safe Uber drivers, but they are the exception.
It is well documented that Uber is losing money. So what is their plan? Their plan is to drive the competition out of business. One of their competitors is taxi cabs (which are licensed and regulated), and in some locations their have nearly succeeded. I’m not defending taxis, whose service was poor for years, but driving your competition out of business by violating the law is not the way things are supposed to work in a country of laws. Competition by offering a better service? Sure, but not by violating the law.
Another effect of even more concern to me is that they are harming public transit. Many transit systems are just hanging on, with declining ridership and declining fare recovery. Some might go under due to the actions of Uber. Of course it is likely that Uber will go under as well, and so the marketplace should work, but what of the damage they cause on their way down? Uber has encouraged the idea that ride hailing is the future and transit is the past. And if we let it be so, it will be.
None of this is to suggest that ride-hailing/car-“sharing”/transportation network companies (TNC’s, the official name of such services) can’t be part of our overall transportation services, complementing other modes. But I will state right here that Uber is not part of that solution, they are the problem.
So, what to do. I ask you, dear readers, to stop using Uber. If they lose riders, they will fail all the sooner, and do less damage on their way down. There are other ways to get around, please use them.
Until a few months ago, I’d have said that companies that bully everyone cannot succeed, but then a bully was elected as a president (or not, depending on your view of the electoral college and popular vote). Perhaps all bets are off. Maybe Uber is the future, the model of business so well refined by Donald Trump.
You bet I’m angry.
#NoMoreUber