Transform to Sustainability

What recent political happenings in Arlington can tell us about politics in general

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Wed, 23 May 2012 17:44:00 +0000

A series of events in Arlington VA underscores issues with our political system that prevent good people from serving in public office.

Arlington County recently experienced the following series of events:

County Board member Barbara Favola won election in November to the VA state Senate, requiring her to resign her seat on the Board
The County held a special election in March to fill the empty seat
Arlington School Board member, Libby Garvey won that election, requiring her to resign her seat on the School Board.
The empty School Board seat did not need to be filled by election; the four remaining School Board members chose the replacement board member.
The School Board chose Todd McCracken to fill the empty seat through the end of 2012, at which time whoever wins the election in November will take the seat.

When the school board announced the process for selecting someone to fill the empty seat, sixteen (16!) citizens submitted letters of interest and resumes (disclosure: I was one of those). For a relatively small jurisdiction like Arlington, that struck me as a remarkable level of interest.

Before Libby Garvey won the County Board seat, opening the School Board seat, Arlington's political parties had been seeking nominees for the November School Board election to run for her seat. Garvey had announced she would not run for School Board again regardless of the outcome of the special election. In Mid-April, the Arlington Democratic party announced that one of the two candidates who was planning to run in November had withdrawn.

Since only one candidate remained for the empty seat, the party would not need to caucus to decide which candidate to support in the election. (NOTE: School Board seats are "non-partisan." However, the parties often "endorse" candidates, which in Arlington essentially amounts to the same thing as being the party's named candidate.)

There may or may not be a Republican endorsed candidate; none has filed yet. Regardless, Noah Simon, the Democratic endorsed candidate, is very likely to win based on Arlington's historical voting patterns. (Emma Violand-Sanchez, currently on the School Board, will be running for her own seat and is a shoo-in for re-election.)

That is an amazing contrast. Only two people in the county will be mounting campaigns to run for School Board (the Democrat is very likely to win based on historical results) while more than a dozen others are clearly interested in representing the County on the School Board. Note that they are unlikely to be doing this for monetary reasons: the job is part-time, but quite time consuming, and only pays a couple thousand a month.

Unquestionably, some of these people are highly qualified and capable (not me necessarily; but others)--perhaps more so than either of the candidates who are running. I spoke with Todd McCracken, and he told me that he was not interested in running for office. Yet clearly he is interested in serving.

The School Board chose a citizen who is not running for office, so clearly they also believe that running for office is not a prerequisite for being a good public servant. Otherwise they could have chosen Larry Fishtahler, who was one of the Democratic candidates and was also one of the sixteen.

Are the citizens of Arlington best served by using the current political process to select School Board members (and County Board members, for that matter)? Are they getting the best people?

I think probably not. However, I don't see an easy alternative. Clearly we would like a system that allows people to choose their own representative to serve on the Board, and elections are the most obvious way to determine that. On the other hand, the challenges that go into campaigning dissuade a lot of excellent people from ever even running.

Some might argue that requiring people to campaign can help weed out those who don't have the stamina or organizational skills or other traits needed to run an effective campaign. That may be true, but for an office like local School Board, I believe the correlation between those traits and traits needed to be an effective Board member are weak.

Are there other solutions? One could imagine an appointed School Board--appointed by the County Board. But that just raises different issues, such as favoritism. Or perhaps a hybrid in which some Board members are elected and others are selected through a different process. I don't have a good answer. But this recent turn of events in Arlington does seem to indicate that our current electoral system is likely keeping good candidates from running for and serving in public office.

My public comments to Arlington County Board re: Bollards

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sat, 19 May 2012 14:18:00 +0000

On May 19, I attended the Arlington County Board meeting and made comments during the public comment period. Each commenter is allotted two minutes, so I had to keep my remarks short.

(For more details and photos, see my recent post on this issue)

Here is the text of what I said:

My name is Steve Offutt, and I wanted to bring to the board’s attention recent activity by the parks department that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

In the last few weeks, numerous bollards have been installed on trails in the County. I know personally of six new ones within less than one mile of my house in Dominion Hills.

Bollards are those posts that one sees installed near trail intersections with streets. They represent a significant hazard to trail users, and can cause severe injury. The purpose for bollards, if needed at all, is to deter motor vehicles from entering the trail.

Four have been installed on the new bridge connecting Madison Manor with EFC. This bridge is at the intersection of two trails—no street—so there is no reason for bollards here. One of them shows signs of being struck by a cyclist, so someone may have already been injured by them.

Similarly, a bollard was just placed on the 4MR trail by Dominion Hills Park. This is my neighborhood and there has not been a bollard there for at least ten years, and I am not aware of any trail encroachments, so it seems needless, hazardous and a waste of taxpayer dollars to place it here.

From what I have gathered, these installations are being ordered without input from county transportation staff who have cycling expertise nor any community input

The Federal Highway Administration provides guidance on bollards. I quote here from their guidance:

Even "properly" installed bollards constitute a serious and potentially fatal safety hazard . .. . For these reasons, bollards should never be a default treatment, and should not be used unless there is a documented history of intrusion by unauthorized cars, trucks, or other vehicles.
Unjustified bollards can create liability exposure. Trail managers should consider whether or not they increase their liability if they install bollards or other barriers.

Since there is no history of intrusion, these bollards are likely to be considered as “unjustified “ in a court of law, exposing the County to legal risk.

I would like to request that the Board instruct staff to immediately cease installation of any additional bollards until a consistent and acceptable policy for location and design that assures the highest level of safety for our citizens who use these trails is in place. I would also like to recommend that the Board instruct staff to remove the bollards that have been recently installed until such policy is in place.

Thank you.

My comments were well received. Member Jay Fisette engaged the County Manager and essentially instructed her to look into it, halting further installations until there was a better understanding of the issue. Libby Garvey spoke with me personally during a break to learn more about the issue.

I am hopeful now that it is on their radar screen.

More bollards in Arlington County

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Fri, 18 May 2012 16:26:00 +0000

There has been a proliferation of bollards in Arlington County over the last few weeks. I know of six that have been installed within one mile of my house, all of which are unnecessary.

From conversations with insiders, I have learned that these bollards are being installed without consensus among staff and against the recommendations of some staff with cycling expertise. In any case, they are being installed without community input and without any input from the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee, of which I am a member. I have previously posted about how bollards are mostly unnecessary and often create more problems than they solve.

(UPDATE: I made comments to the Arlington County Board on May 19. Text of my remarks is here.)

The new East Falls Church bridge went into service last month, and about a week later four bollards were installed: three at one end and one at the other. These three went in first:

Then the other one was installed on the other end:

These bollards are senseless. The intent of bollards is to prevent unauthorized encroachment of motor vehicles on trails. Since these bollards are not at the intersection of a street and a trail, they do not serve their intended purpose. It's not clear what the purpose is, other than to create an impediment and hazard to trail users.

I observed a mother with two young children attempt to navigate the turn off the W&OD onto this bridge the other day. The young, inexperienced cyclists did not strike the bollards, but I could see they made them nervous. Watching that, it is an absolute certainty that less experienced riders are going to strike these bollards and fall down at some point in the future.

One of the bollard's base, in fact, appears to have already been struck by a cyclist, as shown by the markings in this photo. Because the bases are bolted to the ground, striking one is almost certainly going to result in a fall.

It appears that the bollards on the east end of the bridge are actually out of compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), due to the spacing between them.

This week, two additional bollards were installed on the Four Mile Run trail where it goes along next to Dominion Hills Park. I live a few hundred yards from this trail. There has not been a bollard at the corner of N. Madison and the trail for at least a decade and I am unaware of any vehicle encroachment ever occurring. In the photo you can see a patch where a bollard was wisely removed many years ago. Yet now a bollard has been placed, making the turn onto this trail difficult and hazardous. This trail is frequently used by people teaching youngsters to ride bikes, because it is much less busy than the nearby W&OD. It seems almost cruel to place an obstacle in the path that will undoubtedly be crashed into by some young cyclist.

The Federal Highway Administration has guidance on its website regarding bollards. These bollards violate almost everything in that guidance, particularly the first bullet:

Even "properly" installed bollards constitute a serious and potentially fatal safety hazard to unwary trail users. In addition, no bollard layout that admits bicycles, tricycles, and bicycle trailers can exclude single-track motor vehicles such as motorcycles and mopeds. For these reasons, bollards should never be a default treatment, and should not be used unless there is a documented history of intrusion by unauthorized cars, trucks, or other unauthorized vehicles. (emphasis added)

I am unaware of any "documented history of intrusion" at any of these locations. No bollards should be placed anywhere until it is determined that the risks of injury posed by them is outweighed by the benefits of deterring encroachment.

Another bullet reads:

Unjustified bollards can create liability exposure. Trail managers should consider whether or not they increase their liability if they install bollards, gates, fences, or other barriers.

Since these bollards are all unjustified, the County is putting itself at risk by installing them.

For these and other reasons, the W&OD trail removed all its bollards more than 15 years ago. They do occasionally experience encroachments, but have determined that the hazard risk imposed by the bollards is too great to justify their presence. I hope that Arlington will also adopt a similarly enlightened attitude.

The Multi-Mode, Car-Free trip to the party

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:47:00 +0000

On Monday I attended the Queen's Day celebration at the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington DC. As it turned out, the trip to and from utilized numerous modes of travel that all added together to make for an interesting trip as shown on this map.

View Steve's Multi-Mode Car-Free Trip in a larger map

Here's how it went, with the travel mode for each segment shown in BOLD:

- I biked from my house to the East Falls Church Metro station, a distance of about 1.1 miles (BIKE)
- Boarded the Orange Line into DC and exited at Farragut West (METRO)
- I took the Farragut Crossing "invisible tunnel" transfer, walking to Farragut North (WALK)
- Boarded the Red Line in the direction of Shady Grove (METRO)
- Exited at Cleveland Park and walked a couple of blocks to where a Car2Go vehicle was parked on Ordway St., NW (WALK).
- I drove the car 1.1 miles to the Embassy. I was able to park really close, because I squeezed into a little, bitty spot. (CARSHARE)

Car2Go parked on Linnean St. by the Royal Netherlands Embassy

I then enjoyed the party for a couple of hours, leaving about 9:45 to head home
- The Car2Go was still parked where I left it, so I drove it back to Cleveland Park and parked it on a meter right by the Capital Bikeshare station (CARSHARE). Had the car not been there, I would have walked to the Van Ness Metro station, which is about a 12-15 minute walk.
- Rode the CaBi bike from Cleveland Park to 21st & I St. NW, 2.5 miles, which took 14 minutes (BIKESHARE). This was much faster than getting on the Metro and having to transfer at Metro Center. Also, the weather was cool and beautiful, which made the bike ride very pleasant.
- Walked 3 minutes to Foggy Bottom Metro station (WALK)
- Boarded the Orange Line in the direction of Vienna (METRO)
- Exited at East Falls Church and rode my bike back home (BIKE)

Obviously this trip was made possible because I have memberships in CaBi and Car2Go. In fact, my Car2Go trips were free, because this was my first time using it, and I still had 30 minutes of free use from my joining promotion. Without that promo, the trips would have cost about $3.40 each way.

New ped/bike bridge near East Falls Church Metro goes into service

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:50:00 +0000

The new bicycle/pedestrian bridge linking the W&OD trail with the East Fall Church Metro station in the Madison Manor neighborhood has been put into service. The old bridge has been demolished and removed. Final construction details are still being completed, but the bridge is now in use.

View East Falls Church trail bridge replacement in a larger map
As reported in my post a few months ago, the new bridge is larger and modernized compared to the old one. Here are some photos of the new bridge:

New bridge goes off to the right. Cyclist is traveling east on the W&OD trail just east of the underpass at Sycamore Street.

View of bridge approaching from the field across from the EFC Metro station. W&OD trail is on the opposite side of the bridge.

Bridge view looking east across the bridge. W&OD is on the opposite side, running perpendicular to the bridge. The basketball court is beyond the trail.

The new bridge is a big improvement in several ways over the old one:

Wider and meets ADA requirements.
With removal of some pavement, it's much more obvious where the trail is; people are less likely to get confused. Once signage is added, the logistics of this area will be essentially solved.
Concrete deck. The old bridge's deck was wood, which would be slippery when wet or icy

But I am a bit nostalgic for the old one. In particular, because it was tucked into the trees, it gave a sense of being a neighborhhood secret. And it was cuter.

Margaret Thatcher understood environmental dangers like climate change way back in 1989

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:08:00 +0000

Watch this video of Margaret Thatcher speaking on the dangers of environmental degradation and continuing human interference with nature. The section on climate change begins about 5:30.

Keep in mind that Ms. Thatcher was a staunch Conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan (or perhaps he was in the mold of Margaret Thatcher. Well, either way.)

Arlington County begins posting new trail "wayfinding" signs

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:21:00 +0000

Arlington County has started installing the first of the 250 "wayfinding" signs it has planned for along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor (as detailed here). I have blogged on trail signs in the past--mostly negative, because they either tend to not exist or fail to function well.

So it's great that these are finally going up. I'm sure I will have criticisms (see below), but signs of almost any kind are better than the absence of signs. So all in all, this is a great step forward.

I took pictures of them and their exact locations are shown on this map:

This one is mounted on the sound wall at the entrance of the trail It is excellent that the signs indicate the name of the trail. In the past, this has often been a problem. Signs would point towards destinations but would fail to tell you where you were. Now someone using Google Maps and given the direction "Turn Right on the Custis Trail" will have confidence they are in the right place when they reach the trail.
The East Falls Church distance indicator is swapped with the one on the sign below. This sign is actually closer to East Falls Church than the sign below, but indicates that it is farther away.
--------------------------------------------

This has always been a confusing spot, because both directions look like the trail. This sign helps, but would be better if it also indicated that the Custis Trail continues to the left.

Also, as noted above, the distance to East Falls Church is inconsistent with the sign shown above.

----------------------------------------------

I don't like this sign for two reasons.
First, the word "THRU" is a bit unclear. A straight arrow would be much clearer, and it would be more consistent with the directional arrows used elsewhere. I'm not sure what the difference between a straight arrow and the word "THRU" is supposed to be. If there is no difference, then they should use a single indicator.
Second, what's with Washington Lee HS? That is not a useful destination for more than 99% of trail users and is a waste of a sign. Of all the cyclists and peds passing this point, I would guess fewer than 1% are going to W-L. On the other hand, probably more than 25% are going to Washington DC, yet I'm told by staff that Washington DC will appear on very few of the signs even though it is either the most common destination or at least among the top two or three. W-L HS is not even in the top 20. The signs for W-L should be at the connector to 15th St. N near N. Taylor and at the Quincy St. connector (the exit points from the trail to the school) and nowhere else. This sign should have a more general location like "Clarendon" or--better--Washington, DC! That's where everyone's going, after all.

This brings me to one of my pet peeves. Arlington hired a supposedly top notch contractor to do this. They spent a lot of time and money developing a comprehensive plan. I'm active in the cycling community and I never heard hide nor hair from them.

Should they not have been on the DC bike forum asking the community about challenging intersections and common destinations?
Shouldn't they have shown up at the Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings seeking local knowledge?
Shouldn't they have been out on the trails talking with the actual trail users to get their input?

These seem like such simple and obvious information gathering tactics. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that they engaged local users at all other than the Arlington County staff. I have great respect for the staff, but they are just a few people. The Bike Advisory Committee has collectively decades of local experience that the contractor could have mined.

I will keep my eye out for these signs as they are added and will publicize my opinions--good and bad--as we make progress.

New member of Car2Go

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:48:00 +0000

I just joined Car2Go, a new car-sharing concept that has just debuted in Washington DC. I was able to join for free during a promotional period (if you are in the area, try the promo word "capital").

I'm not sure when I'll try it out, but since it was free to join and there are no costs until I actually use a car, there's no downside.

I saw some tweets suggesting that Car2Go will supplant Zipcar. No doubt there will be competition, but Zipcars can hold more passengers and they are available outside the city of DC, which is where I live. So for now, I can see opportunities to use both.

And the cars are cute.

Observations at Powering the People 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:11:00 +0000

The Edison Foundation held their 1-day meeting, Powering the People 2.0, on Thursday, March 22. I was able to visit for a short while, visiting the electric vehicles outside, listening to the introductory speakers and first panel, and visiting the area they called "Innovation Avenue."

My favorite moment of the entire meeting was when the President of Pepco Holdings greeted everyone by saying, "I want to take credit for the early blooming of the cherry blossoms." I'm pretty sure he did not realize the irony of his own statement, what with the significant contribution the electricity sector makes to climate change. (One could point out the Pepco owns no generation, but I still found his statement amusing.)

I was encouraged, however, by the response Nicholas Adkins, CEO of AEP, gave to a question. I don't have the exact quote, but his point was along the lines of, "We need an energy policy that includes a place for clean energy." His point was that with changing tax policies and no price on carbon, his utility is not able to plan. AEP has spoken out in favor of pricing carbon in the past, despite their position as one of the largest coal-burning utilities. It would be great if politicians would take note.

Following up on Jim Pierobon's post on the Energy Collective from the other day, Nick Sinai from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, spoke about the Green Button. (Mr. Pierobon asks the question, "How long until the Green Button performs up to the hype.") Mr. Sinai announced that commitments from utilities had grown to cover 23 million customers. It was not clear the timeline for when these customers would have access to the Green Button, however. My impression was that a good deal of it would be well off in the future. (I blogged previously on one of the over-touted features of smart meters here.)

This jives with my impression of the utility sector in general. They hold conferences like this where they tout innovation (and admittedly, they put on a good show, with big screens, videos, graphics and other technology; yes, the utility industry has lots of money), but they slog along way behind the pace of many other industries.

I spoke with a representative for BGE, which had a booth at the conference. They are installing smart meters on their customers homes over the next 2 1/2 years and will be providing data to their customers through a partnership with Opower. Also, BGE issued a press release (pdf) yesterday announcing they would participate in the Green Button initiative.

Almost half of the funding ($200M of $482M) to get these meters installed came from a federal grant. I suspect the rest will be recovered in their rates. So, yes, utilities talk a good game about their commitment to innovation, but I wonder whether they would have even pursued this innovative business idea if they had to figure out a real business plan and risk their own money. BGE's stated goal is to save 1%, but their hope is to get closer to 3%, according to the representative I spoke with.

There was also a great deal of discussion about electric transportation, including a number of vehicles on display. Here again, although I am strongly supportive of expanding the use of electricity in transportation, I believe utilities are often more hype than action. (Also, completely oblivious to reality, as I pointed out last year in this post).

All in all, what I saw was more or less what I expected. The utilities were doing a lot of self congratulations about how innovative they are (or they are going to be. . .soon. . .really!), but for the most part are still slogging along with some small investments and side programs they can point to so they can claim their innovativeness.

Verizon's short-sightedness on saving energy

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:50:00 +0000

Today's Environmental Leader included a story entitled: Verizon Aims to Cut Carbon Intensity by Half by 2020 (also reported by Tree Hugger).

"We're going to reduce our carbon footprint fifty percent," Lowell McAdam, Verizon's CEO, said in a sit-down with Bloomberg's Alix Steel. "We are now beginning to install solar arrays for powering our cell tower sites, and we've got our first data center powered by geothermal going in."

I am a FIOS customer of Verizon in Northern Virginia. When we had Fios service installed, they placed a backup box unit in my house that draws a continuous 20 watts. 24/7/365. It does not power down when the battery is charged nor when there is no call for service. Just a constant 20 watts. That costs me (and all customers) about $20 per year. Not a lot, but a nice lunch.

I cannot turn this box off. If I unplug it, then it just draws down the battery until it's used up, which is senseless. I could pull the battery out, too, but that's a lot of effort--not as easy as pushing a power strip switch, which I can do with my wireless router.

As of the end of 2010 there were 4.1 million FIOS customers (per Verizon’s annual report - pdf). Presumably there are many more now. Assuming there are at least 5 million, that means a constant 100MW of power is needed 24/7–including during periods of peak power. 100MW is the size of a small natural gas peaking unit. Essentially that means that one additional small power plant is running all the time just to power these back up boxes. That also exacerbates the demand on power production and gives Dominion Power and other utilities more ammunition to build more power plants and power lines.

5 million customers results in annual energy consumption of 876 million kWh. A not unreasonable estimate for CO2 is about 1.3 pounds per kWh, resulting in more than 1/2 million metric tons of CO2 emitted due to these boxes. Then there are the wireless routers they also install. That's an additional 15 watts. So that's total emissions approaching 1 million metric tons for 5 million customers. I do not think they are counting these emissions. Nor do they realize that their customers are paying $150 million per year for electricity for their boxes and routers.

The technology to make these backup boxes “smart” already exists. They could power down to less than a watt when there is no call for service. But Verizon does not care, or--more charitably--is just oblivious. They would rather save the $1 or $2 on the cheaper unit than help reduce demand on the grid and reduce emissions. Given that they have announced their interest in reducing carbon emissions, this is something that should be brought to their attention.

In fact, the costs associated with making these reductions are almost certainly lower than the costs of adding solar arrays to towers, a strategy Mr. McAdam touts in his interview.

I’d like for Verizon to include these emissions in their calculations. That would then, hopefully, incentivize them to work with their suppliers to find more efficient solutions.

Five years of blogging on Transform to Sustainability

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:34:00 +0000

Without realizing it, the 5-year anniversary of my original blog passed by last month. Since then I have posted 368 posts here. Many of these have also been featured on other blogs, including:

So what has been popular? Below is the list of my all time top ten blogs by number of views:

Our Camry hybrid (sixth post) - Documenting the fuel efficiency benefits of our new tires (preceded by five other posts about our car, obviously)
Another solution to reducing auto accidents - If we drive less, we have fewer crashes
Google adds skateboard directions to Google Maps - April fools post
Monday What's on the Web: NRDC's Switchboard - One in my series of weekly posts highlighting other blogs and web resources on sustainability
Film Screening, Discussion and Advisory Committee Meeting on Monday, March 7 in Arlington - Announcement of an Arlington event hosted by the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee. It was well attended.
Build the "Invisible Tunnel!" - The first of the Farragut tunnel posts (from August 2008) that helped promote the eventual adoption by WMATA of the Farragut Crossing in October 2011.
Demographics, Declining Populations and Our Environment - My rant about the disconnect between the need for declining population from an environmental viewpoint and growing population from an economic standpoint.
Integrating High-Speed Rail into the "System" - My proposal for integrating and connecting rail into our air transport system.
Climate Decade in Review - Post 19: Highest Temperature Ever Recorded in S. Dakota - One in my series of events during the 00's. Why this one and not the others? Who knows!
Recycling is the Worst Thing to Happen to Our Environment - Not that I'm against it or anything.

Here's to the beginning of another five years of what I hope are interesting and thought-provoking blog posts. Thanks, readers and followers, for your support.

Declines since 1982!!! (A global warming analogy)

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0000

I get the occasional email from my skeptic friend highlighting the latest study he's seen on Watt's Up With That and how the entirety of global warming science is thrown into question. He included this statement in his last email:

". . .the earth has been cooling now for the last 15 years, while CO2 is still rising."

This is a common meme among the skeptics: that there has been no warming recently despite increasing CO2, therefore global warming has stopped.

The main problem with this argument is that 15 years is too short a period to make any definitive statements about long-term trends. It also fails to take into account other forcings, such as solar intensity (down), ENSO (more La Nina lately) and increased aeresols from Chinese coal burning (study here).

For today, though, I want to show this:

LOOK!! Declining trend. And this one goes back all the way to 1982; 30 years. What could it mean? Whatever this represents, clearly it's evidence of a long-term decline.

So what is this a graph of? This graph shows the annual best long-jump distance by a man during the outdoor track season. And this decline seems to be occurring even during a time of better training, computer-aided physiological modeling, etc. Our athletes must be getting fatter and slower.

If we go back to 1960, though, we get this:

Note the unusual outlier in 1968, Bob Beamon's remarkable jump at the Mexico City Olympics. Even if we start with that year, we still get a positive trend:

(Think of Bob Beamon's jump like the 1998 El Nino, an exceptional outlier that eventually supports the trend rather than refutes it)

So, no, our athletes are not getting fatter and slower. Undoubtedly, the long-term trend will re-emerge and eventually Mike Powell's record from 1991 will also be broken. If I were to offer a bet that long jumpers will be better 30 years from now than they are now, I doubt anyone would bet against me.

So it is with global temperatures. As long as we continue to add heat-trapping gases to our atmosphere, the long-term trend will be up. Short- and medium-term trends may not be, but I'll bet anyone that temperatures 30 years from now will, on average, be higher than they are now. Perhaps someone will take me up on that bet, but they would be as foolish as someone betting on long jumpers jumping shorter and shorter distances.

Join Bruce Piasecki at the Robert H. Smith School of Business for a discussion of his new book

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:27:00 +0000

The Green Business Roundtable, in partnership with the Robert H. Smith School of Business, is pleased to announce a book discussion with Bruce Piasecki, author of World, Inc.. He will be discussing his brand new book, Doing More With Less, the New Way to Wealth.

Date: Monday, March 5

Time: 5:00 PM

Location: Robert H. Smith School of Business
Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Concourse Level - Room C3

This event is free. Please RSVP to smithevent@mail.com

BRUCE PIASECKI is President and founder of AHC Group, Inc. , a management consulting firm. For more than thirty years, AHC Group has focused on the critical areas of corporate governance consulting, energy, and environmental strategy, product innovation, and sustainability strategy. Whether working with Toyota, Shaw Industries, Suncor Energy, or FMC, Bruce and his team show companies how to compete on price, quality, and social needs. Piasecki has evolved from a niche expert on environmental issues for Fortune 500 corporations to a mainstream advocate for sustainable strategies for everyone.

Benjamin Franklin knew instinctively what so many of us have forgotten: Frugality and industriousness are the ways to wealth. After the last set of business scandals and financial busts, many powerful interests, from governments to multinational corporations, are exploring how to do more with less.
Doing More with Less dives into our primal competitive instinct, which embraces frugality as a crucial competitive edge.

A financial solution to the Bethesda tunnel

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:17:00 +0000


East end of tunnel (silverspringtrails.org)

Recently Montgomery County has estimated that the additional costs to the Purple Line of building the bike/ped trail through the Bethesda tunnel could add as much as $40 million to the project. Using financing mechanisms to capture savings could ameliorate part or all of these costs and improve the project and the community at the same time.
(Update: the Washington Post reported on February 25 that the MTA has rejected proposals to put the trail in the tunnel.)

In order to fully appreciate this proposal, we have to accept a couple of assumptions that I believe are true:
1) It is cheaper to build the Purple Line and the trail if there are no buildings and/or building supports in the way during construction
2) It is cheaper to build commercial buildings when there is not an operating transit line below them.
3) Conclusion (to accept for the sake of argument) - It would be less expensive for the Purple Line project AND the building developers to design and build everything at the same time.

As long as there is agreement on these assumptions, then the question of putting all the pieces together in the most cost-effective and beneficial way possible becomes a question of creative financing more than one of engineering. The problem, of course, is that these different projects are paid for by different parties and occur at different times, which can make it very difficult to achieve savings in ways that benefit all the various players. Regardless, let's forge ahead and think through the hypothetical.

Background:
The Purple Line is a permanent piece of infrastructure. Commercial office buildings are temporary structures; both of those buildings will eventually be replaced. When they are, they will have to be built with an operating transit line essentially in the way. This will make construction costs higher; it has to. By how much? I don't know.
The Air Rights Center building in question was built in two parts, 1964/1976, is assessed at $19 million and pays about $250k-$300k/year in property taxes.
The Apex building (7272 Wisconsin Ave.) was built in 1990, is assessed at $40-45 million and pays $550k-$600k/year in property taxes
These buildings are located on absolutely prime real estate in the center of downtown Bethesda and will literally sit on top of the Purple Line when it's completed. It's hard to imagine more valuable real estate in Montgomery County.

View Larger Map

By redeveloping these properties at the same time as the Purple Line, the construction costs of the Purple Line can be reduced (no columns in the way) and the design might be improved. Undoubtedly the design of the bike trail can be improved and costs reduced, since the columns are the biggest impediment. (I'm not the first to suggest that the Air Rights building could be demolished and rebuilt as part of the project. The Silver Springs Trails blog contains lots of detailed information about the tunnel and the issues surrounding it)

Constructing new building supports will allow for larger buildings to be built on the air rights above the tracks and the supports can be modernized to incorporate the latest engineering features. These supports can be designed and constructed to allow for more optimized Purple Line operations and also for redevelopment of the properties in future generations.

So this would mean that the current buildings would be razed and rebuilt. That's a big deal, but could ultimately be beneficial to the neighborhood.

Let's assume that each of the new buildings could be redeveloped at a current assessed value of $100 million. That would double the value of the Apex building (since it's only 5 stories now, that seems quite possible). The Air Rights building is already getting a bit tired, so one could imagine a state-of-the-art replacement. The additional taxes based on that higher assessed value would be:
Apex Building: $500k-$700k/yr.
Air Rights Building: $700k - $900k/yr.
Total: $1.2M to $1.6M/yr. in today's dollars
I'm no real estate expert, so these numbers may be mushy.

Given that the Apex Building would likely not be redeveloped until 2030 at the earliest, Montgomery County could allow the owners to pay taxes on their current assessed value for 20-25 years. The county would still collect what it would collect anyway, the developer would save $10M or more in taxes, but also have a larger property that would collect double or more of the current revenue.

Likewise with the Air Rights Building. Its expected life might be shorter, so perhaps the county would give it 15 years at the current assessed value. But again, the developer would have a much better building to collect higher rents.

Both of these developers would also save millions of dollars on the redevelopment costs for the reason stated above: they would not have to shoehorn their construction in around the operating Purple Line. Determining what these savings might be is admittedly extremely difficult. But just because the costs are hard to quantify does not make them zero. They are real. Future, but real. Also, whatever redevelopment occurs would likely be constrained by the current capacity of the support columns. Making those columns capable of supporting larger buildings will increase the value of the properties. As part of the overall package, Montgomery County could allow for increased density, further enhancing the value of the properties to the owners.

So the total savings for each building in reduced taxes and construction costs may be as high as $15-$20M, plus increased property values. Purple Line savings for building the trail through the tunnel are substantial--perhaps as high as $40 million. Additional design and construction savings for being able to work without the buildings in the way may be even greater than that. Some of those savings could be used to incentivize the owners of the properties.

We know that eventually these buildings will be taken down and rebuilt. Doing it now will bring those improvements to downtown Bethesda right away, not at some point in the distant future. So there are community benefits to this solution as well. For instance, additional entrances to both the trail and the station, and direct access from the buildings, could be designed in. Light tubes or atriums or other features could be incorporated to bring natural light into the tunnel. Streetscape improvements could be built in and the plaza at the west end will be improved, because of no need to build a big ped/bike switchback. There are likely other advantages, too.

Finance 501 informs us that lower costs, even out in the future, can (theoretically) be monetized into the present. The total costs of this 1100 feet of tunnel and air rights can be substantially lower than currently projected, with improved resultant design. The creative financing trick, however, is to figure out how to share those savings across ownership and across time to make it a win-win for everyone. The savings are real. It can be done. But it requires extremely creative thinking, cross-jurisdictional cooperation and a large scale vision.

Arlington County removing dangerous bollards from trails

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:46:00 +0000

Arlington County has been removing some of the dangerous bollards and collars that riders have identified on the bollard map, which is here:

View Arlington Bollards in a larger map

Last week I noted that the two bollards on the connector from N. Van Buren St. to the Custis/W&OD, just east of Lee Highway and west of the East Falls Church Metro station, have been removed and new pavement has been smoothly added. I updated the Bollard map to show this change. Please check out my previous post on why bollards are mostly unnecessary.

If you have noted other bollards or collars (or other similar hazards) on Arlington's trails, please add them to the map. Please also note any bollards that have now been removed, as I did.

Kudos to Arlington for using the information provided through this public forum to improve cycling for all of us.
===============================
Steve Offutt is a member of the Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee

Transforming the market for electric cars: The solution to "Range Anxiety"

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:38:00 +0000

Building the market for electric cars presents a tricky conundrum: charging. People are less likely to want to buy an electric car if they are uncertain about being able to get it charged, and charging stations are not likely to pop up to serve these vehicles if there are few electric cars around. This fear of running out of charge, "range anxiety," is a significant obstacle to more widespread adoption. I believe a forward-looking gas company can help break this logjam while also improving their market positioning. Here's how.

Suppose one company, let's say Shell, installed chargers in every one of their stations in the Greater Washington area (or another region where there are electric cars on the road). The key here is to install in every station, even though many will hardly get used. It's a marketing strategy: make your stations synonymous with electric charging. One company getting out ahead on this could create a very long lasting market advantage. Put a charger in every station and make that information common knowledge to everyone. The marketing has to be comprehensive, so that everyone knows those gas stations have charging stations; it becomes common knowledge. The stations and the marketing are loss leaders; a marketing strategy that pays off in more than one way.

As a driver, keeping this meme in my head is easy. Rather than having to keep track of where the few charging stations are or having to look them up on my smart phone while driving, I just look for a Shell station. If I know that every single one will have a charger, my level of anxiety is reduced. AND, it's the most likely place I will go, because it's easy.

Granted, it takes time to charge a vehicle, more time that it takes to pump a tank of gas. Nonetheless, the peace of mind created by the knowledge that I could stop for 10-15 minutes and take on enough charge to get home could be a key piece to increasing market share. It also creates an enormously positive brand image, even if I never use it.

The marketing effort to make the availability of these stations well known serves to position this particular gas company as greener than its competitors. This strategy is far better than BPs original "Beyond Petroleum" campaign, because this one shows an actual physical commitment that the general public can see everyday right with their own eyes. Everyone: not just those with electric vehicles. The brand value of this would be enormous. This branding strategy is likely to increase market share among regular drivers who are environmentally minded, because they appreciate the environmental commitment of the parent company.

Although another ubiquitous type of shop (Starbucks?) could do this as well, gas stations are the sensible choice. For one, they have the money to invest in this. It would take a few million to really do correctly, but I have little doubt that the brand enhancement would more than make up for the costs, even if the bottom line profit from the stations themselves never did.

Robert Samuelson redefines "reassuring," downplays seriousness of climate change

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:38:00 +0000

In a short op-ed piece today in the Washington Post (January 26, 2012), Robert Samuelson invokes a strange reality on our future.

"A week after President Obama denied the application for the Keystone XL pipeline — which would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands deposits in Alberta to U.S. refineries along the Gulf of Mexico — it’s time for an energy reality check. What does the future hold? It may be better than you think."

That's how he starts the article. Not that he supports the canceling of the KXL pipeline. No, he's optimistic because we will continue to burn fossil fuels on into the interminable future no matter what. That's the "better than you think" line.

He cites the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) estimate that fossil fuels will represent 77% of energy use in 2035, which is a lower percentage than now, but an increase in total usage. That may unfortunately be right, but it's not "better than you think." It's disastrous.

Then he goes on:

"U.S. oil and natural gas production are growth industries. For years, they seemed in irreversible decline. Oil imports were rising, and higher natural gas demand would be met by foreign liquefied natural gas (LNG). Now, advances in “fracking” have opened new fields. From 2007 to 2010, U.S. oil production rose from 5.1 million barrels a day (mbd) to 5.5 mbd. By 2020, it will hit 6.7 mbd, projects the EIA.

"Viewed this way, our energy future seems reassuring." (my emphasis)

Just a paragraph earlier he wrote:

"In 2035, emissions of carbon dioxide are reckoned to be 3 percent higher than in 2010. This contrasts with the declines of 50 percent to 80 percent by mid-century that some scientists say are needed to stabilize global temperatures."

Reassuring, indeed. This rosy interpretation is in dire and stark contrast to the warnings of the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Chief Economist, who in November declared that we have but a five-year window to reverse our dependence on fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic climate change.

It's also in stark contrast to the Stern Review, which estimated that unabated climate change could reduce global GDP by 20%. What's so "reassuring" or "better than you think" about that?

Only in an alternate universe, where the rules of physics are suspended, could one make these optimistic statements with a straight face.

Royal Netherlands Embassy achieves LEED Silver

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:01:00 +0000

I am pleased to report that my work with the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington, DC has resulted in their achieving LEED Silver for their building. They were awarded Silver for the Existing Buildings: Operations and Management (EBOM) track. (I am a LEED AP and am available to help others pursue similar goals.) The building was constructed in the 1950's and underwent pretty significant improvements in the early 90's.

The project started in the spring of 2010 and was completed in June of 2011. Preliminary review by the Green Building Certification Institute (the official certifying body) was followed by a re-submittal of additional documentation in September. This re-submittal resulted in 49 points, just one shy of Silver. We were able to successfully appeal one credit to achieve the necessary 50 points.

Me and the Embassy's facility Manager, Pauline Roukens

The Embassy hired a Dutch firm named Corporate Facility Partners (CFP), which managed the overall project--primarily in regards to energy performance and mechanical operations. My role was to navigate the LEED process and assist the team with whatever other needs were necessary to meet the goal.

LEED EBOM is significantly different than the other LEED certifications that primarily focus on construction. EBOM focuses on the performance of the building itself as well as the management of environmental issues within the building.

In general, one can think of EBOM as a method of looking at and tracking everything that comes into and goes out of the building: electricity, gas, chemicals, office supplies, waste, food, etc. If it comes into the building it is tracked; if it leaves the building it is tracked. The idea, then, is to reduce the environmental footprint associated with all of those things.

EBOM requires re-certification at least every five years, and the building needs to continue tracking their performance throughout. Or else they would need to restart their certification from scratch.

As a LEED AP, I provide services to building management to help understand, pursue and achieve LEED certification. I would be pleased to talk with any interested parties about LEED and its applicability to your project. Please feel free to contact me or pass along my information to others.

Ped/Bike bridge replacement will improve connection from W&OD to East Falls Church

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:41:00 +0000

Arlington County is replacing the footbridge across Four Mile Run that connects the

Existing bridge as approached from the east

W&OD/Custis Trail east of Sycamore Street with the East Falls Church Metro station. The current footbridge is very narrow, very old and has become obsolete. Its replacement is necessary for safety reasons. However, with input from the Arlington County pedestrian and bicycle advisory committees, the County has taken advantage of this opportunity to improve the bridge. The replacement bridge will meet ADA standards, will be wider and is in a better location for reducing confusion among trail users.

On numerous occasions I have offered confused trail users directions at this location, because it is not obvious which direction is the main trail. Obviously, better (or any) signage would be helpful as well. Signage is not included in the current project budget.

This map shows the locations of the original bridge and the new bridge and estimated placement of the new trail connector. As noted on the map, a significant area of asphalt will be removed and replaced with landscaping. The total amount of permeable surface is likely to be increased even though the new bridge and trail connector will be wider than the original.

View East Falls Church trail bridge replacement in a larger map

The new bridge will be 50 feet long and 14 feet wide with a concrete deck (the existing bridge has a wooden deck). The cost for this project is $240,000, with half coming from Arlington's bridge replacement funding and half from pedestrian improvements. Expected life of the bridge is 75 years and the project is planned for completion in mid-March.

Below are some photos.

Existing bridge as approached from the direction of the East Falls Church Metro station

W&OD trail passing by construction zone. Sycamore Street can be seen in the back left.

Current pathway to the footbridge. Construction zone is to the right of the existing bridge

Location of the new bridge. Traffic signals at Sycamore and N. 19th St can be seen in the background.

View of the construction as of Dec. 31

I-66 "Spot Improvement" now completed

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:57:00 +0000

I-66 looking westbound from Ohio St.

The project to widen I-66 westbound between Fairfax Drive and Sycamore Street is now completed. This is one of several projects that VDOT calls "Spot Improvements." In this case, the "spot" is about 1.5 miles long (map). This is the first of these projects, and was begun in the summer of 2010. Neither of the other two projects is currently underway nor scheduled for the immediate future.

The roadbed was widened and new drainage had to be designed and built. The VDOT web page says that the shoulder is designed to handle full traffic and thus could be used as a travel lane in emergencies. The project did not affect the Custis Trail in any way nor any of the soundwalls or adjoining neighborhoods. In my post last year I expressed concern that the widened bridge over the Custis Trail where it passes under I-66 would make it darker and the lighting should be reassessed. My opinion is that the lighting is still essentially the same as before and that the project did not change the daylight on the trail much if at all.

I'm not sure why the shorter dotted lines are used to delineate the right lane. Perhaps to indicate that the lane is not continuous, although I have not seen this treatment in other locations, even where lanes exist for short distances.

According to this VDOT press releas e, the other two spot improvements are on hold in the engineering phase until after the completion of the I-66 Multi-Modal study.

Arlington looking for help with bollard locations

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:41:00 +0000

Arlington County has created a public Google Map that people can edit with bollard locations and issues.

View Arlington Bollards in a larger map

In particular, they are asking for locations where bollard collars (that part in the ground that holds the bollard itself) may be sticking up causing a hazard. Since we have the map, it will also be useful for identifying other bollard-related locations, such as where bollards are needed or where they should be removed.

I have posted on this topic before (here and here). Those who know me know that I am opposed to bollards in general and believe they should only be installed where there is documented need, rather than at every intersection just as a policy. The W&OD trail removed all its bollards along the entire 45 miles some years back and experiences few problems with cars. Not zero, though. However, they have decided that the positive aspects of better aesthetics and safer travel for cyclists outweigh the negatives of a rare car encroaching on the trail.

Please check the map out and add any locations that you believe could use attention. It's easy, just click on the EDIT button and you will be able to edit the map. Remember to save when you are done. Thanks for your help.

On-street Crescent Trail will be worse for bikes and peds

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:32:00 +0000

(This is an unedited cross post from Greater Greater Washington)

This post is in response to a Greater Greater Washington post from Dan Reed: On-street Crescent Trail may be better for bikes and peds

I disagree with almost everything Mr. Reed suggests in his post.

For a year or so I commuted through that tunnel almost every day. It is an excellent amenity.

Mr. Reed suggests that the on-street alternative may be safer because of the likelihood of crime, and he points out crime problems at other bike/ped facilities. This is a red herring argument. The tunnel has been open since 1998 and crime has not been an issue. Undoubtedly it will be even less so with greater usage. The safety benefit of not having to cross Wisconsin Avenue at grade is much greater than any potential danger associated with crime.

He argues that bikes should be on the streets, because then all users will see them as "belonging" there. I agree with this idea, but it makes no sense when there is already an excellent grade-separated facility in existence. I suspect that way over 95% of all bike traffic in the region is already on the streets, so eliminating this one tunnel will not make any difference. Eliminating one of the very best grade crossings in the entire region does nothing to improve cycling; it degrades it. Also, the existence of the much better future Capital Crescent Trail itself will likely increase the number of cyclists in the Bethesda area, so this goal is achieved anyway.

Back in the 90's cyclists fought long and hard to get the tunnel opened because it was a terrific alternative to the on-street routes. It was an enormous success and trumpeted in the biking community when it happened (I remember, in fact). Were we all wrong about it then? Would cyclists have been better off these last 13 years riding on the streets?

photo of Amsterdam underpass by Brent Granby on flickr

Or turning the argument in a different direction, would it be better to eliminate the Custis Trail through Arlington in order to put more bikes on the streets? Or the W&OD through Falls Church? Creating cycling facilities like those found in Copenhagen or Amsterdam--including grade-separated facilities like the one shown here--makes it better for cyclists, and more cyclists are everywhere, creating a better atmosphere all around. Those cities did not achieve their high biking mode share by eliminating grade-separated crossings. Boulder, CO has added 20 new grade-separated crossings in the last 20 years, and cycling has gone up, not down. And there are lots more cyclists on the streets, too--not just the trails. Minneapolis's new Greenway is celebrated as a fantastic success for cyclists and pedestrians. Those are all examples of adding to the bicycling infrastructure, not subtracting from it. And in all cases, street cycling has increased as well.

The alternative on-street route could certainly be designed well. Even at that, though, it is not as good. The shortest alternative adds about 400-500 feet to the trip (the longest one about 1500 feet), but it also entails a 30-foot elevation rise and fall and a major road crossing that will require a wait for a signal. This route is likely to add at least 1 minute to any cycling trip, costing as much 10,000 hours per year cumulative for cyclists and peds (at current usage rates, before increased traffic when the trail is completed to Silver Spring). In addition, auto traffic will also be delayed by longer signal cycles to accommodate trail traffic (which some might argue is good, but it's time lost, nonetheless).

Should MontCo propose closing lanes and parts of streets and eliminating parking in order to create this route, they are likely to get pushback in the public process from drivers and businesses. Compromises in the design are not unlikely. There's no guarantee that the alternative on-street route will end up being as wonderful as Mr. Reed or Matt Johnson suggest. It could very well end up a lose-lose for cyclists and pedestrians: the tunnel option is eliminated and then the on-street alternative is compromised down to adequate instead of excellent.

This trail is already busier than the Custis Trail through Rosslyn, so building a grade crossing at Wisconsin may end up creating as big a problem as the Custis Trail/Lee Highway crossing that is a huge headache for planners there and a significant hazard to users (admittedly, this on-street route does not suffer from the same design issues as the Arlington one and can be made safer).

Should the cyclists and pedestrians lose this battle, it will once again send the signal that they are are lower priority citizens. Cyclists showed up in droves a couple of years ago to keep the tunnel open during the upcoming development by JBG and, with the help of Commissioner Berliner, were able to get that concession from the developer. Obviously the cyclists would rather have the tunnel than the street.

Mr. Reed suggests that taking the trail out of the tunnel will somehow make this a "better experience." Thanks, but I can decide for myself if I want to go to a shop or not, and so can other cyclists and pedestrians. When I was commuting from Arlington to Silver Spring, I wanted to get home--not browse some shop windows, thank you. And I couldn't wait for the tunnel during the dark winter nights, and it made for great shelter during summer thunderstorms. But other times when I was actually visiting somewhere in Bethesda, I could *gasp!* not go through the tunnel and proceed directly to my destination on the streets. As mentioned previously, cyclists fought to get the tunnel opened originally and fought to keep it open during potential building construction. If they thought they would have a "better experience" on the street, then why did they fight so hard?

And nothing is precluding Montgomery County from building excellent on-street bike amenities, too. In fact, they should: the existence of the trail will complement good on-street facilities and vice versa. They go hand in hand, just as pointed out above in good-cycling European cities.

Once it's done, it's done forever; they will never put the trail in the tunnel if they don't do it at the same time as the trolley. Fifty years from now no one will care how much it cost way back then, but they will be really happy it's there. Does anyone remember how much it cost the B&O to build that tunnel 100 years ago? No. But boy are we happy it's there now.

Keeping this excellent piece of the regional bike infrastructure is critical to the ongoing growth of cycling and continuing to improve Washington's standing as a good biking area. As Dan mentions in his post, the trail has been included in plans for the Purple Line for more than 20 years, including the tunnel portion. It's a promise that should be honored. It should not be eliminated to save a few dollars that no one will remember a decade from now.

New bridge design serves pedestrians and cyclists better

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:41:00 +0000

Arlington County has chosen a design (pdf) for its upcoming rehabilitation of the Carlin Springs bridge over George Mason Drive.

View Larger Map

The current bridge has five-foot sidewalks and no accommodation for cyclists. The new bridge will have 8-foot sidewalks and 5-foot bike lanes on both sides. The rest of Carlin Springs Drive does not currently have bike lanes, but it is important to plan for the future by including them now. Had the County not included better bike/ped accommodations, then those decisions would have been difficult to change for 30 or more years.

Carlin Springs Drive is currently not pedestrian friendly. There are no signalized crossings for 1.3 miles from its origination at the Ballston Mall all the way to the interchange at Route 50/Arlington Boulevard. I know of several families who live nearby who will not allow their Middle School age children to ride the bus, go to the Arlington Forest pool, or bike to the Bluemont Junction Trail unaccompanied because they cannot safely cross Carlin Springs Road. Hopefully this improvement will be the first of many steps to improve the overall design of Carlin Springs through North Arlington to better serve all users of the road.

For more information about this project, click here.

Skeptics are not statisticians: 1% of a data set does not disprove the whole data set.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:45:00 +0000

A friend of mine likes to provoke me by sending links to posts and articles that contradict the established science on climate change. Recently he pointed me to this post that appeared in Watt's Up With That: NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder. My friend accompanied this link with this comment:

Well, the figures are in from the NOAA National Climate Data Center and the rest is just high school math. While US CO2 emission has gone up precipitously in the last 100 years the average temperature in the US has gone down. Of course you could look at just the last 15 years and ignore the rest. In this case CO2 has still gone up a lot and temperature was flat. Does this fit with saying the controversy is over and global warming is an established fact.

I countered with some points, but only later realized the biggest flaw with this reasoning, which I'll get to shortly.

The WUWT post does not outright dispute global warming, but rather presents these data as somehow bringing into question the validity of global warming through implication more than direct assertion. That's the way with many of the more careful skeptical bloggers: be careful not to state outright what we know to be false (e.g., global warming is not happening). Rather throw up some graphs and spend time nitpicking at details to create the illusion that there's a problem with the overall argument. In this post, there is a subtle suggestion that the existence of a counter-trend in data somehow calls into question the conclusions of the BEST report

But that's an absurd position. Keep in mind that all temperature data worldwide are included in the BEST data. So the data upon which this post is based are a subset of the BEST data. Essentially for this post, they ignore 99% of the BEST data, find a selected set that shows different results than the full set, and subtly imply that somehow the tiny subset calls into question the entire set. Since when does a subset supercede a full set of data? Yet that's the implication of this post.

As an analogy, say polling is done and 60% of men prefer women with green eyes. Then someone looks at just the data of left-handed men. Only 25% of them prefer women with green eyes. That may be interesting to note, but it does not have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that the majority of men prefer women with green eyes. It's still 60%.

Likewise with BEST. The full data agree with the other well-known temperature data sets that show an overall warming of about 1 degree C over the last century. This particular subset may tell us something interesting about a tiny portion of the globe during a particular period in time, but it does not change the conclusion of the overall data one miniscule iota.

"Does this fit with saying the controversy is over and global warming is an established fact?" my friend asks. That's a senseless question. The BEST data strongly support the established fact of climate change. A tiny subset of that data changes nothing.

Note to Carol Browner: Even if the idea is right, you gotta make sure it's backed by the truth

noreply@blogger.com (Steve Offutt) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:00:00 +0000

Carol Browner was quoted in the Washington Post on Sunday. The quote was from an energy conference held in Washington a week earlier. Here's the quote in its entirety:

People like to pooh-pooh regulations and suggest that, somehow or another, regulations are not good for business. But, in fact, regulations can create business certainty and business opportunity. When the government puts in place a requirement and standard, that means there’s the certainty of a return on capital investments.

And we have a long history in this country of doing just that. If you go back to 1990 when the Congress decided to ban chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, a market opportunity was created. And we found a solution or a replacement for CFCs, which were dangerous to the upper ozone, and we did it more cheaply and more quickly than anyone anticipated.

Some in this industry and the natural gas exploration extraction industry have not been as forthcoming as others. . . . I would just encourage the industry to be as transparent as possible in an effort to ensure that this is a thoughtful discussion about how we move forward.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Browner's sentiments (hey, she used to be my boss!). However, focusing on the second paragraph, I found it shocking that she presented the CFC phase-out that way. I know that she knows what she said there is not true; she was around back then and working on these issues. Congress did not decide in 1990 to phase out CFCs. The US signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and Congress ratified it in 1988. That's when they made the decision to phase them out, but the US had already decided to be part of the international effort much earlier. She makes it sound like Congress was somehow instrumental in the decision itself, which is completely untrue. What happened in 1990 was the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments that created the mechanisms to actually carry out the Montreal Protocol.

This may seem like a minor detail, but for people like me who know this, it's very transparently wrong. It serves no purpose to mischaracterize or misrepresent the truth when it would be just as easy to tell it correctly. Getting it wrong just reduces one's credibility, especially when the rest of the message is exactly on target.