|
Entries (most recent to oldest): 1 - 10 | 11 - 20 | 21 - 30 | 31 - 40 | 41 - 50 | 51 - 60 | 61 - 70 | 71 - 80 | 81 - 90 | 91 - 100 | 101 - 110 | 111 - 120 | 121 - 130 | 131 - 140 | 141 - 150 | 151 - 160 | 161 - 169
2011.01.16 at 07:25 AM CST Seriously!? This is NOT what I call a free country.
2010.12.06 at 02:10 AM CST A few updated links:
2010.12.01 at 03:15 AM CST And now some things I think more people should be reading, investigating, supporting, and/or discussing:
2010.12.01 at 02:45 AM CST Wow... Over two years since I updated... Since November 2008, I've been working for Hostway. I've continued to travel when I have time and have made it to Seattle, Maine, NYC (for HOPE), Chicago, Washington D.C., San Francisco, and places in Texas to see family. I am always behind with photo uploads, however here is a tiny sampling...
2008.02.15 at 03:05 AM CST Note: I'm putting this online in short list/note format after a long update hiatus. --jarehart, 2010.12.01 @ 02:12 AM CST First a few rough notes from two CAMPO TWG meetings:
And a few related bits/updates from 2010:
2008.02.14 at 03:25 AM CST I have several topics for tonight, so several will appear here with another major topic in an upcoming post. First, I wonder why SBC's name migration to AT&T results in a new circuit ID for my DSL and why a new circuit ID results in incorrect link speeds as well as no traffic passing over the line. My DSL was down from about 09:30 am on a Friday until 02:00 am on the following Monday. Speakeasy and Covad did what they could, but ultimately it appears to have meant waiting for Bell to fix things. Apparently Bell does residential DSL work around 02:00 am? :-P (This is more amusement at the process than a complaint.) Second, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Texas' law banning the sale of sex toys. In my opinion, it is about damn time that silly thing was declared unconstitutional. For amusement, here is a clip of the late Molly Ivins discussing such for a documentary called the Dildo Diaries. Third, some commentary on use of the word "gay" that I find inappropriate, yet all too common. Earlier this evening (in irc) a technical question was asked about probable file transfer speeds from a co-located machine to one on residential cable via ftp and scp. A quick excerpt (nicknames other than mine anonymized):
Yes, I realize it is "just irc." However, I see this too often both online and off. I think it stems from the larger problem that the term gay is still "OK" for use describing something as "not good," "bad," or "sucky." I usually refrain from mentioning this when it happens, but finally decided I'd had enough. I tried to be polite and fair in my discussion, and I should note that <bar> is not the only person I've seen do this in that particular channel. Also, it might have been good for me to rephrase one of my above quoted statements as, "I fail to see how the term 'gay' means 'sucky' (or similar). Am I missing something?" To close, I think it is important that the general perception of being gay as bad or weak needs to change for real progress to be made toward societal acceptance of non-straight people. Fourth, it appears Texas may have some function in this year's presidential election, in that the state's delegates to the convention for the Democratic Party may influence which of Senators Clinton or Obama ends up the Democratic nominee. I do think that, as usual, the state will go for the Republican nominee in the final election, so my vote in November will have less use than my vote in next month's primary. Now I just have to actually decide for which to vote. :-)
2008.02.01 at 05:15 PM CST Time for the "weekly" update on CAMPO TWG meetings. After finally waking up early enough and not having other events require the flexibility/timing of my car (like the last two weeks), I was able to walk/bus to the meeting on January 28. (Yay for being able to then walk to Little City and home again later as well.) This meeting was presentations from the Austin - San Antonio Intermunicipal Rail District (ASA) and Capital Metro. (Also, for those that are interested, PDF versions of the slides and video of the actual meetings are available from the the CAMPO TWG web page.) ASA, in ways similar to Capital Metro's MetroRail seems like it will be useful, but we still need to solve transit for Austin itself. (Sound familiar? It is exactly what I said with regard to the MetroRail red line.) One good thing is that they've seen and like how Amtrak will partner with other organizations to run services similar to this (such as the Downeaster between Boston and Portland, ME). They hope to start service 2011 or 2012. Capital Metro talked about their significant existing infrastructure and coming plans. They mentioned the various types of mass transit (subway, commuter rail, light rail, streetcar, bus rapid transit, local bus, and express bus) and where they think each is best suited. They mentioned the history of rail transit in Austin and the various proposals to bring it back from the mid-70s to now. One thing is they still seem to think of streetcars as a good central Austin circulator (with connection to the MetroRail red line). The problem is that a streetcar would likely be stuck in traffic more than a bus, because a bus can drive around obstacles and a streetcar can't. I suppose a streetcar could work better in European cities which have historically had higher density, fewer people driving, and people who keep their car(s) out of the way of rail due to awareness: resulting in fewer things blocking track. Light rail, on the other hand, has its own right-of-way (by definition) and can therefore move more quickly. (There are, of course, light rail systems that switch between reserved guideway and open street as they move through areas where reserved guideway wasn't deemed feasible.) I think reserved guideway is more important in the US as we typically have lower density (with less pain to own/park/drive a car), and therefore more "trouble" with cars impacting transit performance, due to the number of cars present. All that said, it is good to see Capital Metro at least mention separate right-of-way and the fact that the most successful transit systems use rail and bus to complement each other. The fun thing about all this (as I've realized and as Capital Metro mentioned several times), is that transit planning ties in to city planning quite a bit. Good transit works better in more dense, walkable areas. Austin has only a couple of these, though more are forming. There is still much debate over this however. As mentioned by M1EK, some neighborhoods in Austin are still resisting so-called vertical mixed use (VMU) and other infill development. I wonder how long it'll be before we get that denser areas where one doesn't drive all the time are more environmentally sustainable, an that if we don't change our general pattern of development, Austin will end up a big sprawling mess? I guess the consolation is that we may have the right groups together talking about transit planning. Now we just hope and comment when/where necessary and hope the correct decisions get made. And, the more that I think about and discuss this general set of topics with people, I realize that I didn't arrive where I am immediately. I had to experience cities that are already far more dense and walkable than Austin (usually with older, more extensive public transit) to come to the conclusion that I would rather live in a city of that type, and that I think Austin should adjust its growth guidelines accordingly. With that taken in to consideration, I can see other people needing time to "get it." I just need to remind myself of that last little bit. :-) Next a few links from the Austin Chronicle:
In the short term, we're starting to get much more discussion within neighborhoods as well as between neighborhoods and the city. More involvement, even when people disagree is good, as it means people will hopefully come to some consensus that all can support. The process takes time. Austin, in a sense, is experimenting on itself. In 5 - 15 years we'll have some sort of idea if it works well. Hopefully, we won't stand still during the process or after and will continue to more actively and cooperatively plan our city; which it seems we've not really done in the last 15ish years. Finally, a few recent photos. Two are of Austin and one is hanabi (a.k.a. flower fire or fireworks). :-)
2008.01.20 at 08:00 PM CST I've now made it to two meetings of the CAMPO Transit Working Group (TWG). It is refreshing to see many of the right local agencies involved in a discussion regarding how to deal with transportation in Austin and surrounding areas. The real test will be to see if the TWG has success over time in developing a good solution, and in the process working with the various stakeholders and their initiatives already in progress, where it makes sense. (How's that for a carefully worded statement?) I am cautiously optimistic for now. I missed the first two or so meetings of the TWG in which they planned a course of action and wrote up their charge. As I understand it, the two meetings I've attended and at least two upcoming are set up so that the working group may hear from various stakeholders and from those who have possibly relevant plans to bring to attention. I presume after this series of presentation-centric meetings are done they will move on to discussion and brainstorming of further and/or new options. In the January 7 meeting we heard from the cities of Leander and Elgin. Leander was mostly information about development in progress centered around the coming MetroRail Red Line. Elgin talked about the fact that Capital Metro owns other rail from Austin east toward Manor, Elgin, and Giddings. The catch being that Leander is a member of Capital Metro now (via partial sales tax contribution) and Elgin is not, which creates funding challenges for the commuter rail line they would like to see. Personally, I can see how commuter rail could benefit Austin, especially in the long run (as such systems do in the Chicago, Boston, and New York City areas), but we also need to have a robust, efficient system within the City of Austin for the residents of Austin (as well as all the people that a commuter rail system could bring into the area). I also think that we should be willing to consider different funding sources for various parts of an overall system as one funding solution may not fit all cases. The January 14th meeting involved presentations from the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) and the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA). RECA's downtown parking proposal focuses on car-based transport. However, they implicitly make the point that no matter what kind of mass transit Austin does or doesn't add to the central city, we'll need some sort of improved parking situation for downtown just because of increased population. One hopes that RECA and the City of Austin (COA) will work together on unifying their parking proposals so we're not duplicating effort. The RECA proposal includes a set of busses (the BAT) to move people around downtown and to/from the proposed new garages. Exact routes and so forth are yet to be determined. There was some mention of doing reserved lanes where possible to better guarantee bus frequency and timeliness (as that really is the only way to hold a schedule when there is traffic). RECA is proposing that the parking garage spaces cost less than market value, and that people who pay to park ride the BAT for free. It is undetermined whether non-parkers would pay to ride the BAT. They also feel that Capital Metro's Dillo system is outdated and should be replaced, possibly with the BAT. At the same time Capital Metro has some group looking at how to update/restructure the Dillo. Current Dillo services are free, which may or may not stay the case. Regarding non-parker fees for BAT as well as updating the Dillo, one could argue that a fareless zone should remain in downtown to encourage walking and transit use. (This is similar to likely reasons behind Portland's fareless square.) There was some concern over possible lost parking along the BAT route(s) due to reserved lanes. The counter-point to that concern is that if we have this system and good transit within Austin we're likely to have more people walking in downtown and therefore less need for the street parking we might lose. Those planning transit and running retail and whatnot in downtown will do well to remember this and not hold so tightly to the "almighty adjacent-to-the-store parking" some seem to hold so dear. (Note: As planning moves forward, I expect reserved guideway will be a big point of debate, as any rail service will benefit from it even more than bus service.) Next, an observation. I think that we need to be conscious of how often our transit planning and discussions are car-oriented in Austin. As we plan/ponder for the future, we should consider a more mixed scenario, where pedestrians, cyclists, cars, busses, and trains all exist. And specifically that Austin could have a significant increase in pedestrian and transit use, if we plan our city and transportation systems accordingly. CTRMA talked about their recent 183A project and the financials behind it. They also mentioned their willingness to be involved where possible with future transit projects both in planning and construction and funding. So far (and via their website) I get the impression that CTRMA is pretty road oriented, and mostly toll at that. I think they're not opposed to connecting with other forms of transit, and may be open to more direct involvement in non-road transit, but I've not seen evidence of such. Maybe that is just because there has been little discussion of non-road transit until now? And now for a little semi-random discussion. RECA's proposal mentions using rubber-tire vehicles for the BAT route. That's fine and all, as the BAT may be a permanent thing or an interim until better/other central Austin transit is available. However, I think people should be aware that there are advantages to light rail (LRT) over bus rapid transit (BRT). LRT vehicles last longer and have the possibility of more passengers per driver. LRT tends to be electric, not diesel or compressed natural gas (CNG) or hybrid, while BRT can be any of those. LRT and BRT, when done correctly, both have reserved guideway of some sort. Also, LRT is usually more permanent due to more construction required, or when BRT is done correctly, just the impression that rail is more permanent than bus. That permanence tends to garner greater development related to transit in a particular corridor. So, despite higher initial cost, LRT seems (without my doing a ton of research) to have greater benefit and lower cost of ownership over the long term. Next I'll expound a bit on density. Greater density is here and coming in various areas of town. It doesn't have to, and probably won't happen everywhere in town. (And we won't reach Manhattan's density levels.) Density isn't all bad especially if we're a bit careful. It can bring gentrification and higher cost of living, but it doesn't necessarily have to. I'm no expert, but I bet there are ways to preserve the character of various neighborhoods and encourage a percentage of affordable housing units. In my experience areas with a mix of people and a mix of income levels are more interesting. I think such can be preserved as an area densifies. I think, if we try, we can keep the more central, dense areas from becoming exclusive to the wealthy. This is not to say that more homogeneous, boring neighborhoods don't have their place, just that we don't have to let everything feel like that. Let's leave that to the more sprawly suburbs, OK? ;-)
2008.01.03 at 09:55 AM CST First, an editorial from the IHT, called What's your consumption factor? Next, after my previous rant about transit in Austin, I may attempt to attend the next couple meetings of a few groups. Those groups being the Austin City Council, the Council's Land Use and Transportation Subcommittee, CAMPO's Transportation Policy Board, and CAMPO's Transit Working Group. I'll see how those go and decide from there how much involvement I think I can manage. Finally, a few post-travel photos are online.
2007.12.31 at 11:15 AM CST A few amusements of late:
Before I forget... Happy solstice (late, I know) and new year (a bit early). On another topic, I continue to read information about transit in Austin and other areas, and am still amazed to find how many people don't know that the coming rail service from Capital Metro is commuter rail, not light rail. Second, people seem unaware of the differences between them. At least in Austin, commuter rail is about getting people into town from the suburbs (or just one suburb in our current case) while light rail tends to move people around a dense urban area (and on occasion link to outlying park and ride lots). People in Austin seem to be under the impression that Capital MetroRail will do the latter, which doesn't seem to be the actual case. It is past time to pay attention to transit in Austin. But late is better than never. Supposedly, central Austin will be getting something approximating Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the form of Capital MetroRapid. This is supposed to happen after the commuter rail goes into service. Also, the people in central Austin who most likely were the stronger supporters of light rail in the failed 2000 election will get something inferior. Situations like the current one regarding transit in Austin tend to put off usable (light) rail transit even longer as the perception becomes that rail transit doesn't work, when the real problem is/was that the wrong rail was built. The similarities between Austin and south Florida are just scary. Maybe this frustrates me too much. Maybe it is due to my travels to walkable cities with good transit. Maybe I should just give up and move to San Francisco or Portland or similar? Some of those alternate areas would even have politics I find more agreeable (vs. Texas in general; Austin's are more tolerable). Is it telling that my desktop randomizer picked a subway shot from NYC as I'm finishing this entry? ;-) One more thing... I see people mention that rail is more expensive and less fuel efficient than bus. What they conveniently ignore is that subway and light rail are nearly always electric (not diesel) and that they attract riders who almost never ride a bus. They also tend to have their own right of way and are therefore immune to delays on the "normal" road system. Rail transit turns out to be more consistent and faster than buses. It is also less expensive, or at least a break-even, in the long term; but realizing that would require us to think about the long term, and what's the likelihood of that? Entries (most recent to oldest): 1 - 10 | 11 - 20 | 21 - 30 | 31 - 40 | 41 - 50 | 51 - 60 | 61 - 70 | 71 - 80 | 81 - 90 | 91 - 100 | 101 - 110 | 111 - 120 | 121 - 130 | 131 - 140 | 141 - 150 | 151 - 160 | 161 - 169 |
URL: http://www.clarkk.net/older.shtml
User agent: CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html)
Remote host: 38.107.179.244