On Bicycles, and.... what else is there?

Election time, so time to make my choices on ballot measures. Proposition 1 The arguments against this bill are compelling. First, a focus on surface water storage via the construction of dams doesn't create any more water: it allows more water to be drained from our otherwise overtaxed rivers. Second, the cost of the bond come from the general fund. Costs of water storage should be paid through water use fees. The real issue is water consumption needs to be reduced, and it's simple economics that be incentivized via increased costs. Subsidizing water use doesn't accomplish this at all. So I am a skeptic about this bond justifying it's in excess of $7 billion cost. California needs to reduce it's excessive rate of water use, and this doesn't address that. No Proposition 2 This is supposed to be a "rainy day fund" for the state. Unfortunately, when there's "rainy day funds" there's the incentive to conclude a lot more days ...

I like to review the ballot measures here each election, and 03 June brings a primary to San Francisco. Here's measures on the ballot, the first two California-wide, the final two San Francisco county: Proposition 41 : This is a bond to subsidize housing for veterans. I don't recall California declaring war since it was incorporated as a state. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,... these ridiculous charades have all been the action of the federal, not the state governement. Therefore I think it's ridiculous to expect the states to pay the fully predictable costs of these tragedies. Let the federal government clean up its own mess. vote now. Proposition 42 : Fairly technical, this seems like a good idea. I'll vote yes. Proposition A : This is a San Francisco bond to repair water systems for emergency response. I'm absolutely against. This is an ongoing expense, and should not be paid with bonds. The city government needs to allocate ongoing maintenance costs wit...

Now it's time for the state propositions. These will probably be tricker than the city ones. Proposition 30 - income tax increase of 0.25% for incomes over $250k to fund schools: Reluctant yes. I oppose targeted revenue. I believe all revenue should go into the general fund. In the end, targeted revenue is generally a deception, anyway, since unless the individual targeted component is more than the entire budget, then funding from the general fund can be reduced to bring the funding for that target back to or even lower than it originally was. Classic case: San Francisco voters decided to send more funding to MUNI so the police increased their fees they charge MUNI essentially taking all of that increased money for themselves. But I think the revenue is needed, especially in an age when the federal government is looking to push more fiscal responsibilities onto states. Proposition 31 - Budgeting rule changes: No. Are you kidding me? I stared at this one for several minu...

The past month hasn't been very productive. After hurting my back in a silly accident, I couldn't ride or run without discomfort. Topping it off, I was either ill or suffering from allergies, because I was congested and tired. I was able to take the train to the day job and do that, but otherwise, I generally avoided "productive" pursuits. Coding projects were put on hold, my blog experienced further neglect. On the positive side, I started reading books again, something which I'd not had much time to do for awhile. Today marked my return to normal activity as I completed my first SF2G in over a month. This was a big relief. I've lost enormous fitness during this time, and summer goals are suspended. I just need to get back into regular riding and think about late summer. Long term is my first road marathon, CIM in December. But today is about election day in California. I'm a registered Democrat, so I wasn't able to vote in the Preside...

I want to revisit Jerry Brown's pocket veto of SB910 , Lowenthal's bill which would require a 3-foot passing margin when passing cyclists while driving more than 15 mph, and would further allow drivers to legally cross the double yellow line when doing so and when line-of-sight allowed: Here's Brown's explanation : On streets with a speed limit of 35 or 45 mph, slowing to 15 mph to pass a cyclist could cause rear-end collisions. On the other hand, a cyclist riding near 15 mph could cause a long line of vehicles behind the cyclist. This conclusion is exactly correct if the bill required a 3-foot passing distance and that the driver go no more than 15 mph. For example, it was proposed cyclists on the Golden Gate Bridge be restricted to riding no more than 5 mph when passing pedestrians. It would then become illegal to pass a pedestrian going at or in excess of 5 mph. But that's obviously not what the bill requires. In fact, nobody giving the bill more than...

First Jerry Brown vetoed Sen. Mark Leno's SB 223 , a bill which would have allowed cities to restore the vehicle license fee which Governor Schwarzenegger had eliminated during his administration. Whether or not you think cities tax too much or not, vehicle fees are fair and rational, because they help reimburse the city for infrastructure supporting motor vehicles. Further they have a negative impact on congestion, promote public safety by getting cars off the road, and promote demand for public transit which helps promote denser schedules. The bill didn't establish a fee, it merely gave cities the right to impose them. But SB910, the Lowenthal's bill to mandate a 3-foot passing zone when a motor vehicle passes a cyclist while driving at least 15 mph, seemed different. There was no reasonable argument against the bill, which had early flaws but which was, after several iterations, pounded into excellent shape. Amazingly, despite the opposition of the Republican minor...

Rendering of high speed rail car passing electrified Caltrain along Brisbane Lagoon I just fired off a letter to the editor of the Palo Alto Daily News . A loud vocal objection has been voiced to the impact high speed rail will have on quality of life. However, the proposed alternative is always that the would-be passengers will stay peacefully at home. To the contrary, if they aren't on the train, they'll be flying or driving. Flying requires valuable land for airport expansion, and more planes roaring overhead. More cars on the road? 101 and 280 are incredibly disruptive on communities, on local access, on noise, on air quality, on public safety, and on aesthetics. I experience this every day, living close to 101 and 280. I far, far prefer investment in rail to dumping more precious resources into inefficient automobile or air infrastructure. Transportation investment is always a matter of damage mitigation, whether it is in walking or cycling trails or in projects o...