I can't help finding it ironic that an essay entitled "The Elusive Dream of the 15-Minute City" has Alan Ehrenhalt (20 July 2021) treading where many have expanded their minds, if not their footprints, over the past 100 years. He writes "I can't help finding it ironic that in the 21st century some of the best minds in urban planning are striving to design the sort of communities that used to exist without anybody inside having to give them the slightest thought" (my emphasis).

Used to exist. This was life for most urban residents in the evolution of cities where walking was the only form of transportation (and thus not "having to give ... the slightest thought"). It's possible, however, that many people everywhere reside in a similar buffer, given time budget constraints. It evolved naturally, just like today's car-oriented pattern evolved naturally given the existence of cars. The 15-Minute City is an about face to an urban concept where most residents would again meet most of their needs within a short walking distance of their homes. Was this a concept that actively was relinquished in light of a better option? Has that better option become one that is unsustainable? If so, do we go back, or do we go forward?

I support walkable neighborhoods, which are not the same as walkable cities. Ehrenhalt uses the example of Chicago where an intended insult on the city level became an unintended compliment at the neighborhood level. Neighborhoods provided access to activities all within 15 minutes, but the city was at best an interconnected network of such neighborhoods, with those connections often questionable due to a range of non-compatible land uses in both the built and natural environments defining and restricting neighborhoods.

I live in a 2,100 square foot single family home on leased land with a 10 minute greenbelt stroll to work, with a broad range of residential amenities within 5 minutes (pools, parks, trails, a nature preserve, etc.), in the middle of the 6th most populated county in the US, and the second most densely populated county in the state, in a city that has reserved over 40 percent of it's sizable footprint as permanent open space, and all of this located just a few miles from the ocean.

Is this a 15-Minute City? Of course not. No city can offer what I just described all within a 15 minute walk. But guess what? In addition to my 5-Minute Neighborhood, everything else that I regularly access -- including family, stores, work, health care, airports, beaches -- is within about a 15 minute drive. In this regard, I consider myself quite fortunate. Not everyone has this opportunity, and if everyone did, then the options I've described would no longer exist. Sure, you could pack millions of people into cities, many of them within 15 minute neighborhoods, but would this work for most people? Do most people even want this?

Ehrenhalt also sees these problems and suggests that, if walking is the mode, perhaps a 5-10 minute city (an "n-Minute City is a better soundbite, but an "n-Minute Neighborhood" is a more appropriate reference). He also does not see this working for bikes since the needed increase in infrastructure would be in most cases excessively expensive. And public transit? Maybe a station within 15 minutes, but not an actual trip that would take only 15 minutes. The author does make one critical error regarding cars. While he agrees that 15 minute cities already exist for cars, he adds that this is "precisely what we need to stop doing" but offers only the fossil fuel issue, something that electric vehicles can address. Why do arguments against cars always play the fossil fuel card? This is an argument to do away with fossil fuels, not an argument to do away with cars.

I support various concepts of cities. In core urban areas perhaps all cars should be removed. But those who wish to live in such environments should find one and move there, rather than trying to devolve other city forms to their liking. "The biggest difference between those who love living in big cities and those who don't is that those who do, can't comprehend why those who don't, don't."

Endings in love and politics are often awkward, to say the least. At least in politics, some rules could easily be defined. For example, a recall of a governor can occur only if the recall election can be completed with at least 50 percent of the term remaining and, if the governor is recalled, the duly-elected lieutenant governor assumes the governorship until the next regular election. Fair, right? But, you might recall, all is fair in love and war.

Nicholas Goldberg has a "both sides moment" with his Op-Ed (LA Times 20 August 2021) "L.A. opens the the door to a free ride" immediately sub-titled "There's more to learn about doing away with Metro fares." Ideas, especially those that can be empirically tested, are usually good. So, the free-fare transit pilot programs to be conducted in LA might prove useful, as may additional tests of any pay-as-you-go VMT taxes as alternatives to gas taxes. But any empirical study, or discussion there of, should first fully exercise due diligence. Goldberg does write "before we jump ..." but seems only concerned with higher taxes. The costs of fare-free transit would have to be covered, and if demand then shifts from roads, service expansion would cost even more.

Pandemic ridership impacts were preceded by an 18 percent drop from 2014-2018, but transit nationwide had never recovered from the roughly forty percent declines associated with the 2008-2009 Great Recession. This has become a chronic problem and unlikely one that can be easily resolved. Consider Goldberg's points:

• Being First: There's probably a reason why "L.A. would become the first big city in the country to take such a radical step." It's not only radical but will likely have the sole impact of making current riders a little more happy.
• Mixed metaphors: Goldberg immediately links the fareless initiative to the need "to get people out of their cars and onto buses and subways" to reduce traffic, air pollution, and carbon emissions. Many urbanists and planners often link these two concepts. Dropping the cost of a cheaper alternative will not change the minds of those already choosing the more expensive alternative. Electric vehicles can address AQ and GHG emissions. Policy (growth control, pricing) and technology (IT and AVs) can address traffic.
• Economics 101 tells us what? It tells us that cost is not the only factor, clearly, since highway demand is roughly 16 time greater than transit demand despite significantly higher costs (albeit lower travel times). There are access/egress issues, system spatial and temporal knowledge, personal comfort, and many other reasons for not making the transit choice). The big problem is the peaking of demand that leads to inefficiencies in all transportation systems, including both roadways and transit system. It's not just that buses are stuck in the same congested traffic as cars, but the fact that peak demand exceed capacities or both systems.
• Dropping fares would make the disproportionate number of low income riders happier, but would they use transit more? If most have a monthly pass, the additional cost of a transit trip is zero already, although doing away with monthly passes might also remove the incentive to use transit given the commitment made by purchasing the pass in the first place.
• More Econ 101: We don't have direct payments for sidewalks but they are in part paid by property (and other) taxes. Currently, about 20 percent of federal fuel taxes goes to transit systems, an Econ 101 cross subsidy. A cross-subsidy from roadway congestion pricing, while not unprecedented, nevertheless has two fundamental problems. First, equity: predominantly higher income drivers subsidizing inferior modes for lower income citizens. Second, success in expanding transit ridership by pricing drivers into transit will simultaneously eliminate the source of the subsidy. Who pays then? In the rest of the world, there are both fares and huge government subsidies paid for with higher taxes (back to Goldberg's stated concern).
• Proposition A: The fare reduction was essentially a bribe to gain the support of LA transit riders despite the intention to eliminate the subsidy after three years to fund the development of a rail system. This is the current destination of most revenue from LA's large transportation sales taxes. But it wasn't just the fare subsidy, since bus transit suffered from that point on with revenue not supporting service levels. So how bad is current transit service? Goldberg provides an interesting factoid: 70.9% of LA residents are underserved by transit versus 28.4% in NYC and 8.6% in SF. LA is nothing like those two cities (nor are virtually any other cities in the US). But if you're going to compare transit service, please also compare housing and other costs of living, average commute times (highway and transit), and other dimensions that impact quality of life.
• Psychology: not only is a car much faster door-to-door, but when two people leave the same office to commute home to similarly distanced neighborhoods, the one that takes the car is "close to home" as soon as they're sitting in their vehicle, while the one that takes the bus is not home until they actually are.

There are (at least) two sides to every story but in recent times it seems that more often than not the two sides are diametrically opposed. Newspapers have a repution for placing differing viewpoints on the same Op-Ed pages while audio-visual media seem more likely to embrace a soundbite. The bottom line is that there are usually different viewpoints and each should be considered when you are forming opinions. But I wonder if individuals focus only on a viewpoint with which they are already predisposed and perhaps miss or even ignore opposing views? Here are a few examples where the juxtaposition of views have recently jumped out at me. We'll start with roads, then proceed to smart cities and traffic signals.

A recent newsletter from a respected transportation research center presented two briefs. The first, "Can America's Road Builders Break the Highway Habit?" addresses Biden's infrastructure plan currently in negotiations in Washington. The link quotes a CityLab article [15 Apr 2021] in which Laura Bliss writes:

"While these agencies have evolved in the decades since the Interstate Highway Act, their DNA -- and the vast majority of their spending -- still lie in the highways they built 70 years ago, when the emphasis was on throughput and speed, not pedestrian safety and racial equity."

The second brief immediately followed, entitled "DOE Awards $60 Million to Accelerate Advancements in Zero-Emissions Vehicles," and reported 24 new research and development projects aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars trucks. Improving vehicles can be consistent with improving the neighborhoods through which they travel, but this certainly would be taken by some to be that old "road and car" DNA at work.

Maybe a new paradigm is needed, one where the primary objective is no longer to dominate the world's economy by placing our economy first and foremost over all other concerns, but rather to re-focus on quality of life issues. Since the "throughput and speed lobby" will no longer be paying directly for their old benefits, they will now need to pay indirectly via higher taxes which will be required to fund public programs with a formal orientation toward non-automotive mobility. Proponents of current and emerging alternatives rarely present the many problems of their preferences, and funding is just one such problem. Maybe Robert Frost should have considered roads when writing "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."

Infrastructure planning, development, and management has been under constant improvement throughout the history of civilization. This is the primary reason that I've always abhorred terms such as "smart" or "intelligent" systems. All systems reflect a level of being smart or intelligent based on contemporary or near future levels of technology. Everything else is PR (and PR that is generally an oversell). I do like much of the press on Smart Cities because, like many innovative systems and concepts, it helps focus our attention on current problems and also on the active consideration of potential solutions. What these efforts do not usually achieve is a balanced perspective, primarily because these efforts are primarily profit motivated.

I am appreciative of media efforts, although typically too little and too late, to show that most "smart" projects never achieve their initial objectives. I just saw this in Fast Company:

"Designers, planners, engineers, investors, technologists, developers, and entrepreneurial city leaders had for years espoused visions of an urban future in which embedded sensors, ubiquitous cameras and beacons, networked smartphones, dashboards, and omniscient operating systems would produce unprecedented efficiency, seamless connectivity, convenience, and, for the especially well connected, the realization of what Aaron Bastani calls 'fully automated luxury communism' (or capitalism: The smart city could be made to support a range of ideologies). Yet the appeal of such an urban vision, and the belief that it's even possible, seems to have waned."

"Benefits for cities are unclear and hard to measure. Upfront costs can be high and continued maintenance and monitoring costs won't be trivial either. Hence, there's no clear business case for companies selling smart cities products and services, at the moment."

In SmartBrief for Civil Engineers (13 Aug 2021) is a link to "Albuquerque confronts speeders with innovative stoplights." On one hand, we have "innovative," "smart," and "enforcement" as the key words. On the other hand, we have a system that seems to have several complementary benefits. The systems features "Rest on Red" programming where an approaching vehicle can trigger a change to green only if it is traveling at or below the posted speed limit.

Progression has often been a goal of signal timing to minimize delay but also to minimize fuel consumption and emissions. The Albuquerque system, however, appears focused on stopping speeders, but this may nevertheless lead to better progression and the associated environmental benefits, once drivers find that they can't benefit by speeding. It was unclear whether there's an emergency vehicle preemption and it also didn't say what the effective traffic volumes would be. For example, if cars are queued at the signal, would the same "rest in red" scheme be maintained? My pet peeve when driving is having a vehicle in the fast lane coast into a red signal while I'm trying to get to a left turn pocket. I wonder if such an action would be more effective when the through red is held for a speeding vehicle intending to turn left, thus extending the left turn green?

Both Sides in Sum. Perhaps one can better see these three issues from both sides now, or at least see that there are multiple viewpoints. In general, the primary benefits and costs of change may be unintended. Consider California's SB375 which has not yet succeeded in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but since it was enacted in 2008 decision-makers, professionals, and the general public have never been more aware that there indeed is a problem to be addressed. Perhaps that's life. But I really don't know life at all.

In Cleveland, a bridge (a structure) spans a river (a water resource) that had caught fire on numerous occasions (an environmental topic) and features The Guardians of Traffic. In this AP image, the bridge is free of traffic (and, thankfully, flames and toxic smoke), unlike in most images that usually depict anything associated with transportation as congested, polluted, and otherwise a bane on society. In Cleveland, the bridge, the river, and the City itself are on the upswing but, unlike Cleveland, my home department's web page still features an image of a congested freeway. I began the process to change the page, but to be honest I spent more time mocking it.

Theoretically, the page would be easy to change; practically, it would be tilting at windmills. The public doesn't even notice structural and water resource infrastructure, even when it doesn't work (Flint's lead pipes and Seaside's condo collapse not withstanding). But for transportation systems, and to some degree for many environmental systems, an unfortunate stasis has evolved, to the extent that an engineering department in a premiere research university provides a home page that prospective students will visit that includes an images of system failure rather than success. It's quite possible, however, that no one would notice, perhaps because these problems that humans directly create are also problems that they appear to accept. These problems include social, economic, and political elements, but you wouldn't find such an image on these departments' web sites.

How does one assess the value of work based solely on simple metrics such as the size of both the inputs and the outputs? In academia, the publish or perish policy applies across all academic units but in STEM areas there seems to be, at least at some levels of review, a disproportionate weight assigned to simple estimates of inputs: how many contracts and grants and how much funding. The ability to create, complete, and publish innovative work is an output that is not necessarily directly linked to inputs such as grant funds. And the outputs that have some meaning, such as number of books or papers published or the number of graduate students advised, can be weak quantitative indices of some underlying but often unmeasured qualitative assessment of performance.

So it was with little surprise that I finally concluded that such false objective formality is present in most areas where the judgement is actually subjective. Such assessments often appear in the media so it may be that this is a media thing (as well as an academic thing). Consider this excerpt from today's LA Times Sports section: "A law firm hired by the NCAA to investigate equity issues released a 113-page report that includes a series of recommendations ..." Why is the phrase "a 113 page report" included? Does this matter given the importance of the underlying issue being investigated? Would a 226 page report been better?

One could ask to what degree are inputs linked to outputs? "Why was the dollar value of the contract with the law firm not mentioned?" A lot of people can spend a lot of money and produce reports with a lot of pages. None of this measures the effectiveness of the outcome and perhaps those who can measure outcome effectiveness look past irrelevant measures of inputs and outputs to focus on the overall objectives. If so, for whom are these irrelevant measures presented? Do readers of the sports page say "Hmm, only a 113 page report? How good could that be?" or "113 pages? How much money did they waste on that?" I do admit that in academia I have rarely seen a page count associated with books or papers, but at the same time, ten 10-page papers is usually double the value of five 20-page papers. But this is not the time or place to critique the academic review process. I would probably need at least 113 pages to do that.

... or it's something else: random musings from the last month or so ...

• Lying. Last month, former presidential jester Kayleigh (McEnany) McInanity claimed she never lied as White House press secretary. There are two possibilities: first, she lied then and she's lying now (as the evidence suggests); second, she carefully constructed her words to avoid responsibility for lying directly (such as attributing her words to others) which is intentionally misrepresenting the truth. Which is lying.
• Rounding. Our list serve reveals that Taco Cat's daughter of 2.65 years loves her drumming class. A pet peeve has me often yelling at parents who still use months even after their little ones pass 2 years old. I guess Taco Cat didn't want to get yelled at. "I don't always listen to drumming, but when I do, so do the neighbors."
• Night Life. A Saturday evening virtual card game was canceled in lieu of live blues and baseball, two of my favorite past times. But I'll be staying home writing songs about America's new favorite past time: wishing it was past times ("... but it's my life").
• Quality. Quality of service, public safety, professional ethics are reasons why professional engineers are licensed to practice, as are many other professionals. It is rare when civil infrastructure fails but when it does engineers are drawn in like moths to a flame to determine what happened so it never happens again. Why doesn't a similar licensing and ethical system exist in software engineering? Are there rogue civil engineers maliciously designing infrastructure and hacking for structural weaknesses to compromise system performance? While I understand that much infrastructure is often one-off systems whereas the same software manifests in multiple environments, I've never heard of an engineer intentionally designing back doors to be able to compromise infrastructure and exploit public safety.
• AP History. An old LA Times Op-Ed was a Noah Berlatsky screed that, despite the presence of some good points, was quite annoying. I'm all for improving the breadth and depth of K-12 education but I'm not a fan of AP courses due not only to grade inflation (take all the A students out of normal US history and put them in AP where their As now will inflate their GPA, and those B students left in regular history class will learn the same material but now receive a higher grade) but it inflates the entire college resume process with a rising tide that lifts all boats but somehow places greater pressure on everyone as well. But I degress: my initial annoyance was derived from Berlatsky's daughter hating her AP history course because it was whitewashed, sort of a forest for the trees thing. I'm sure AP history is whitewashed but it seems that each of us is too focused on the AP tree.

Chaotic systems come in two flavors. Level 1 chaos is that which does not react to predictions about it. An example is the weather. Level 2 chaos is that which reacts to predictions about it, and therefore can never be predicted accurately. Examples include markets and politics, as well as my primary area of interest, travel behavior. Odd that a concept that can be defined in such a clear and simple manner can be used to describe something that cannot. Note: I first came upon these definitions of chaos in Yuval Noah Harari's Sapiens.

I offer some simple recommendations to those charged with policy development and the decision making process in California regarding potential changes in transportation and land use systems for the near future. Most of the items on the list are actually "not-to-do" items, and the others are "don't do the same way" items.

1. Stop growth for the near future(*). The state has (a) a long-term drought that will make for many hard choices for residents, business and agriculture, and natural habitats; (b) an explosion of high school graduates who are qualified for UC or CSU admission but cannot be accommodated due to insufficient capacity; (c) a housing affordability crisis; (d) a congested transportation system (both roads and transit) with worsening air quality and greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming; and (e) increasingly widespread and destructive wildfires due to all of the above.
2. Stop building new freeway capacity (excepting spot improvements directly linked to safety, pollution, etc.)
3. Stop building infrastructure-oriented (rail) transit systems until planning can reflect evolving trends.
4. Never build another HOT lane and convert all current HOT lanes to HOV lanes. HOT lanes do little more than encourage wealthier individuals and businesses to travel farther and faster, degrading air quality and impacting equity.
5. Leave land use decisions at the local level, at least until the policy impacts are fully understood.
6. Stop forcing MPOs to adopt VMT reduction as a primary strategy. The state decided that VMT was the problem. It is not. Cars burning fossil fuels are producing the climate change problem, but this problem can be addressed by electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
7. Don't discourage electric vehicle adoption. Resources limitations and associated impacts for batteries will not be as severe a problem as resource limitations and associated impacts for fossil fuels.
8. Don't implement congestion pricing as anything other than a short-term strategy for very specific applications (including an exit plan). Congestion pricing has huge equity issues and using revenues to support public transit does not fairly address equity for transit users and the middle income drivers who are priced off the road. Once implemented, like tolls, pricing will never go away. The public hates the concept.
9. Don't discourage telecommuting. Peak hour commuting is inefficient. The pandemic has shown that a flattening of the peaks is achievable with telecommuting policies that have broad public support.
10. Don't assume that increasing density works everywhere. It doesn't. The pandemic provides some immediate justification, but more people prefer the qualities of suburban life over the urban equivalent. Instead start with restructuring dense urban cores by eliminating cars, re-designing both transportation infrastructure and operations to accommodate if not prioritize alternative and public transportation, while reflecting points 1 through 9 as much as possible.

* Note: California already has a 10 year trend of net out-migration and had a negative population growth rate last year for the first time in a century, so the process is already underway. The pandemic was responsible for a portion of the loss (due to both immigration limitations and COVID-19 deaths) but as it begins to be under control so must we control growth.

"Rapid population growth and technological innovation,
combined with our lack of understanding about how the natural systems of which we are a part work,
have created a mess."
David Suzuki

"Zoom fatigue is real, and back-to-back meetings are adding to feelings of stress and burnout. To help address this meeting fatigue, we are changing a setting in all UCI Microsoft Outlook accounts ... [with] ... shorter default meeting times." The first choice for a 30 minute meeting will be 25 minutes with 50 minutes for a 60 minute meeting. Are people really burning out from a 30 minute Zoom meeting? Is there really any difference between a 30 minute in-person meeting and a 30 minute Zoom meeting? Is this social engineering being passed down the Ivory Tower?

This applies to all campus employees, except College of Health Science employees who apparently are immune to the identified health effects of online meetings. Can the Department of Physics be next to propose changing the scales in campus health facilities so that every 6 pounds will now be only 5 pounds since the health effects of pandemic weight gain can cause stress and burnout? I'd like to propose that every potential decision along these lines, and the associated memos, be subject to the 16.666 percent solution, as in just toss that portion of them a priori, since this idiocy is creating stress and burnout in my life.

An email from The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that "the Arctic permafrost is thawing so rapidly that the ground in Alaska's North Slope may not even be solid enough to support the machinery needed for oil drilling." So what's a oil company to do? Apparently, ConocoPhillips has developed plans to "install chillers in the ground to keep it solid enough" for oil drilling, so the world can burn more oil to make global warming even worse, which in turn will thaw permafrost even more ... Could be a plot line for a evil scientist satire. But it isn't.

Groucho Marx had a famous quip "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." Most people, however, cannot overcome the need to belong and will embrace any system that welcomes them. They will exalt any charismatic snake oil salesman who refers to them as "us" and to everyone else in near satanic terms. An explanation is offered that individuals who seek change in their lives (or increasingly seek stasis in an ever-changing world) will latch on to the nearest bright light and, once committed, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, their paths are set and choosing otherwise is anathema.

Had Me/Now been a little more responsive to the pandemic, followed his talking points, and maybe been a bit less of an asshole, he likely would have won in 2020. Could an insurrection of any sort have taken place in the months that would have followed? If so, would the reaction of those in power been the same? Would our democracy have survived? No, no, and who knows.

The fundamental problem in the age of information is not so much false information as it is simple messages of outrage. Those who claim "Stop the Steal" really don't want to see truth: they are fully satisfied with the simple, untruthful message. This is the history of mankind. Education used to preach the 3Rs: Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic. No where do we teach our children how to think, how to form their own opinions, how to challenge other opinions. This is because the well-trodden path of blind loyalty is easier and does not require thinking. Those who are only marginally more adept are aware of this and will guide you along that path. If you let them. Like a lamb to the slaughter.

"Flattening the curve" was the expression adopted by public health officials to emphasize that the sharp peaking of COVID-19 infection rates at the start of the pandemic would overwhelm the capacity of healthcare facilities to accommodate those who needed service. Policies to achieve this flattening included various activity and travel restrictions that were arguably effective in flattening the infection curve, as well as a curve more familiar to transportation professionals, the peak period traffic volume curve. This flattening produced significant reductions in congestion despite relatively small reductions in overall vehicle-miles traveled. A shift from in-person work to telecommuting was likely a causal factor in the flattening for both curves, with work from home increasing from roughly 5 percent pre-pandemic to over one third of the labor force in the early months of the pandemic after public sector and private business policies were imposed. How effective telecommuting and related policies will be in addressing the traffic peak hour problem as the pandemic recedes is unclear. However, as disruptive and costly as this pandemic has been it has provided a rare real world experiment upon which we can base future transportation policy, not to mention policies and impacts on work productivity, transportation systems, housing and land use, and many other areas of modern life.

Algorithms and apps may help you not get lost, but uncertainty is not always a bad thing. There is uncertainty in exploration, in discovery, in new experiences. The very nature of uncertainty, and the very nature of being human, is that these unknown elements contribute to what it means to live, to what it means to be human. Algorithms and apps may help you not get lost, but what will you lose?

The subject of maps was addressed in Yuval Harari's Sapiens in support of his "explore and conquer" theory of European excellence over the past 500 years in establishing the links between exploration (scientific and geographic), capitalism, and empire. A critical observation was the development of maps, post-Columbus, that clearly reflected that "we" did not know everything (a blow to organized religion) by showing "unknown areas" explicitly on these new maps. In fact, Amerigo Vespucci had two texts attributed to him that for the first time clearly stated that there were new lands west of Europe and east of Asia, something that Columbus apparently never accepted. Mapmaker Martin Waldseemuller drew a revised map but had apparently never heard of Columbus having instead only seen the attributions to Vespucci and thus named these new lands America.

I have always been fascinated by maps. I recall a project in 5th grade where I drew a world map and plotted the paths of the major explorers, identified by nation and year of exploration. This connection of government, geography, and time was critical in my own academic and personal development. I still cannot go some where new without first looking at a map, something that today would be the last thing that most anyone else would do.

Years ago in the dawn of the internet I had a colleague who loved being able to request a book from the library and have it delivered to his office door. For me, I loved being able to walk to the library, go directly to the shelf, and then explore the books north, south, east, and west of the one I sought. For me, having been able to follow those roads, now often no longer taken, has made all the difference.

Someone subtly scans each room, searching for someone who just maybe was subtly scanning the same room, searching for someone just like them. To find the one. Someone who wistfully recalls many evenings doing just that; who rues the pandemic for the loss of opportunity and the need for online searching; who reminisces about conversations over drinks at more popular bars and restaurants than I knew even existed; who is exasperated at dead-on-arrival online meetings while momentarily forgetting about the in-person equivalents; who roams the city and passes by all the places they can no longer haunt; and who finally has a revelation. A revelation that anyone listening could have reached after only a few moments.

Someone who was "fortunate to be born and raised in LA", to attend the finest schools, to be part of the diversity and thrill of a "city with a bustling nightlife" and to "meet incredible people at countless bars and restaurants," but who makes no mention of the resources that funded this life. But a revelation? As in something to make one re-assess and re-orient their life? No. Someone is already dreaming of how they will expand their search for someone to include other potential meeting places such as stores and gyms. Someone is alone but not alone, for there are many like them out there. But for many, finding one is most difficult. I am someone who has no answers, other than that time has shown that I am unlikely anyone that someone will find [LAT]

We have "evolved" from control by "virtue" of physical force to control by political, economic, and intelligence campaigns. In the past, a country would threaten or even attack another country with military forces; today, we increasingly see cyber warfare. The maritime trade routes of the past have been replaced by internet e-trade pathways, with a high level of effective piracy likely already privatized by governments around the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Today's column by the always interesting Nicholas Goldberg, "Trump's legacy: Amateurs who run for office" (LA Times 8 July 2021), makes the argument that amateurs, and celebrities in particular, have no business even considering running for higher office. He states the obvious that one does not have to be "smart, experienced, level-headed, or decent to win an election."

It's not the lack of qualifications that enables such an office seeker to win; rather, it's the odd presence of something different, voicing positions that resonate with people who are ready and willing to go with something different. It worked for Arnold and it worked for Me/Now. The problem is as much the voters themselves as it is those who try to earn their votes. Voters are reactive, not proactive. They prefer to not get involved until someone comes along and convinces them that they're being screwed and that they need this particular person to get rid of an automobile registration fee, or to drain the swamp, or to buy this elixir to make their lives whole again. The Republican Party literally had no platform in the 2020 election and I don't think that absence is why they lost. They thought they had the snake oil (but apparently to most people it had expired).

Goldberg provides a list of amateur politicians who are professional celebrities and, quite frankly, most of them have no qualifications to run for higher office. But Goldberg does not make clear that people with no experience should consider public office but that they should start at the bottom to gain some experience first. After all, every politician starts out as an amateur with little or no experience. This is often the incumbent's strongest position: 'I have experience, my opponent does not.'

And that's the real problem. It's not the amateurs; rather, it's entrenched politicians that are the problem. An upstart with no experience has little chance to replace an established politician who is active doing the job they were elected to do. But most politicians quickly realize that they represent themselves and will take any action, or no action, to ensure they keep their position and power. With growing frequency these are not the actions they were elected to do: negotiate and compromise to serve all Americans. This is why we need term limits. One need not worry about recalls or brash amateurs with a system that is constantly refreshing itself.

I propose a maximum of eighteen years in Congress, in any combination of Senate or House service. When termed out, you can go back to your state (and follow whatever rules might be in place at the state level) or you can move up to the Presidency (already with a two term maximum), the Supreme Court (with a new 18 year maximum), or go back to the private sector. States and political parties would focus on the progression of qualified candidates since these higher offices would be much more frequently rotating. Expertise would not be lost because career government employees and the staffs of elected politicians possess most of the political experience in the first place. The only real differences between the average American and the average politician is money to get in and a professional staff to stay there.

Over 100 years ago, Eisenhower joined a military convoy departing Washington, D.C. to drive across America. A dedication ceremony was first held for The Zero Milestone, the point just south of the White House from which all highway miles to the nation's capital were to be measured. The journey covered about 3,200 miles in 62 days, averaging 52 miles per day. In recent years, the average round trip commute to work has been about 32 miles per day.

Every new generation behaves (at least) marginally different because social mores, technology, and many other factors evolve, often slowly like a stream etching the landscape. The effect might be indirect but continuous, from parents and other mentors who would have been influential during one's age-defining years (1981-1996 for millennials), or direct but episodic, from a range of external factors (such as 9-11 or the 2008 recession as millennials became independent). When a large external factor is introduced, such as the Vietnam War for Boomers, things can change more rapidly, at least in the short-run. For millennials, this could have been the one-two punch of 9-11 followed by the Great Recession seven years later. New behaviors, however, should not be ascribed to a generation unless there is strong supporting evidence over time that fundamental changes have occurred.

First, consider the arbitrary nature of the designation. What defines a generation? Historically, it was based on standard genealogy: your grandparents, your parents, and you are different generations, roughly 20 years apart. Since growing up is typically in cohorts, each of these cohorts would be a generation. You would go to grade school, high school, college, and the various life stages all as part of the same cohort, that is, the same generation. But this does not reflect external factors, nor does it capture the continuity of time and genealogy. Your next door neighbors move in and start a new family 10 years after your family did: what does this cohort share with you?

Second, this is more a research and media artifact: an attempt to make something out of whatever might be there. Sources have not always agreed as to what defines these periods, but many sources suggest Boomers (1946-1964), Generation-X (1965-1980), Millennials (1981-1996), Generation-Z (1997-2012), and whatever. Would a late period Gen-Xer (born in, say, 1980) behave more like a Millennial? Would an early period Gen-Zer (born, say, in 1997) behave more like a Millennial? Even more important, external factors of sufficient magnitude would logically be a critical causal factor in behavioral change. For example, Millennials were aged 12-27 at the start of the Great Recession in 2008. Wouldn't this economic impact be the primary causal factor in behavior changes for individuals first gaining independence from parents, rather than the random fact that they were born in a particular 15 year period?

This of course can be tested, and likely has. But there are those who want there to be differences, often as evidence that behavior is changing in a desired manner. For example, were Millennials foregoing the conventional American Dream of a suburban home and multiple cars for a inner city loft and public transit? Wishful thinking. It was the economy, stupid. The recession starts to fade and the Millennials start to look like their parents. Differences? Some, but are they significant? More to come ...

A recent flyer, one of many of late, features "experts" in transportation, consumer behavior, and environmental health to share perspectives on the environmental health impact of evolving mobility options. My argument is not about the topic but about the continued ascription of an inflated status to people who, experience and ideas not withstanding, effectively lower the bar on what constitutes an expert (a similar argument can be made regarding heroes). The flyer in question also references my pet peeve of evolving or emerging trends.

The central problem is that those currently deemed experts are typically those who make the complex simple, which reminds me of a paraphrased quotation (I've lost the author's identity) "Making complex subjects simple is, well, simple ... presentations often seem complicated because the speaker is too focused on what matters to them rather than the audience." Ay, there's the rub. The difference between an expert's presentation that an audience thinks is good and one that is good for an audience is the degree of "ignorance is bliss" with which the audience departs. I do understand that many people are under pressure to make decisions and need the best information available, but that best information in the field of travel behavior is more often than not uncertainty. I think that one should always leave a presentation with more questions than answers.

The truth is that we do not have many real answers when it comes to human behavior. Trends often mask underlying behavior the same way that models do. An expert needs to use these tools but must also be careful when presenting results which are really just educated guesses, like forecasting the weather two weeks off. The only thing in which I consider myself an expert is knowing that I'm not an expert. As with most things I do, these opinions do not make people happy.

"Fake trees have taken root," Daniel Miller's (30 June 2021) front page article in the LA Times, produced some odd but primarily benign response letters (not unlike most posts in this blog). The original article was probably unnecessarily comprehensive, and definitely unnecessarily long, eventually reaching the inane discussion of southern California's invasive cell towers mimicking what are essentially invasive palm trees so that invasive humans can virtually exist somewhere else. This is also reflected in allusion to utility poles not being required to hide in plain sight without recognizing that this species has, at least in cell tree neighborhoods, been long ago forced underground with other roots.

If you want to have ubiquitous cell service, you need ubiquitous cell towers, and given aesthetic limitations of cell towers, hiding them in plain sight as trees makes a lot of sense. There's a lot one could offer in complaint regarding the disproportionate impact of cell phones on daily life, so I can only conclude that these folks can't see the forest for the trees.

Reed Stevenson and Mark Gurman (LA Times, 5 July 2021) write that "Big Tech wants to grab your car, attention." That last word is the more ominous but also more specious part of the claim, but it's the sub-head that really caught my eye: "At stake in the competition to build self-driving vehicles is the last vestige of consumers time." This is incorrect: sleep consumes the largest chunk of daily time that is as of yet not controlled by, although indirectly tarnished by, big tech (one day, perhaps soon, we androids will be dreaming of something other than electric sheep). Even assuming that such claims of the vehicle fleet comprising only autonomous vehicles fully controlled by some corporate entity are valid, why would the vehicle's occupants be similarly controlled? Now freed of way-finding tasks, travelers would be able to choose how to while away the hours. Even public transport does not impose a media stream on users. But my real complaint is the continued claims that autonomous vehicles are right around the corner. The article suggests that by 2030, 58 million AVs will be in service globally. Total vehicle production over the few years before the pandemic was about 90 million per year. Currently there are about 10 million EVs, with production currently at 2 million per year and growing. But AVs? Claims of 10 million by 2020 were a bit inflated (there are essentially none, with perhaps 2,000 in R&D). Big Tech apparently sees a $2 trillion market by 2030, and not in the cars themselves (expensive to build and with a relatively small profit margin) but in the controlled media stream that will somehow be imposed. The article quotes studies, plausible studies, that suggest that fossil fuel demand could peak in "just six years" -- peak, not end. The article adds that EV market penetration should hit 16% by 2025, 33% by 2030, and 68% by 2040.

The article further muddles the distinction that autonomous cars are a special case of electric cars. It is the latter, EVs, that hold promise for environmental improvements. Studies of AVs operating in a ride hailing fashion suggests that these operations will increase vehicle miles traveled and thus could have a variety of negative impacts on the environment (and remember, fossil fuel burning vehicles will not disappear any time soon, nor will the true self-driving car -- you know, the one with a driver driving themselves). In the area of goods movement, the article suggests that Amazon could potentially benefiting from self-driving cars providing driverless (i.e., employee-less) package delivery to homes. Public transit has the last mile problem but urban goods movement would seem to have a "last yard problem" -- how does one get the package from the driverless vehicle to the front door a front yard or so away?

Does anyone else find it odd that Big Tech wants to feed you ads to buy the stuff that Big Tech doesn't actually want you to have? Perhaps what they really want are automatic monthly payments, at least as their immediate goal. A modern version of Bradbury's apocalyptic vision in "There Will Come Soft Rains" comes to mind where what's left of your house keeps streaming advertisements, placing orders, and accepting deliveries, while billing your bank account that still receives paychecks from businesses that no longer exist while all that remains of you is a charred impression on the one remaining wall of your suburban utopia.

From the perspective of someone who pays attention to most travel-related things, it seems that autonomous vehicles, as for monorails before, are always on the verge of deployment but never quite arrive, the hardware equivalent of vaporware. Researchers, media, and technology geeks are all immersed in the birth process, spawning the acronym CASE (connected, autonomous, shared, and electric) and the 3 Revolutions from UC Davis. The who, what, when, where, why, and how questions are heavily debated by most involved, not to mention the potential impacts that might follow. I'm not trying to be pedestrian, but I have a different perspective, paraphrasing Joni:

"I could drink a CASE of you, darling / And I would still be on my feet."

Renewable power sources just became the second-largest source of electricity generation in the U.S. Natural gas accounted for 40 percent of generation, followed by renewables (21%), nuclear (20%), and coal (19%).

With the current tsunami of conspiracies, lies, and misinformation, you may be tempted to simply disregard if not reject everything you hear, but that is precisely what our disgraced snake oil salesman has been proselytizing. When you're brainwashed to reject virtually everything, you cling to whatever is left, even if that entity is the source of the confusion. Are your eyes wide shut? When any information begins to overwhelm you, facts or lies, beliefs or opinions, just relax. Take a breath and open your mind. Consider the source, do a little thinking, and try to make a little sense before you boldly go beyond the fringe. Turn on, tune in, drop out. That expression doesn't mean what you think it means ... or does it?

On 6 November 1978 I found myself at Shea's Buffalo Theatre to see Little Feat. It was the last show on their tour and it appears to be their last show with Lowell George, and I think their last show at all for many years. George launched a solo tour and about eight months later on 29 June 1979 George was found dead in his hotel room of a heart attack. There's much I can say on many related issues but, in minor tribute to George, I'll keep it to the point. Waiting for Columbus, which was recorded live in 1978, is one of the best albums I've ever heard.

In a meeting regarding the applicability of AI techniques in transportation planning and forecasting, I explicitly did not use the term Expert Systems because "old experts" may no longer be relevant, and "evolving" or "new experts" are quite often false prophets. In another meeting, questions were raised about the level of detail to be provided in a webinar. I've never liked "dumbed-down" presentations, regardless of who the audience is. A concise, up-front "this is where we're going" and at the end (or interspersed) slides that say, "OK, this is what we found" are great, and needed, but one can get lost in the middle unless they recognize that the work presented was a lot of thinking, analysis, and discussion and it's not just, "see, it all turned out just like we thought it would." One doesn't need to fully understand the complexities, but they do need to understand that complexities exist, and what is sacrificed to the abstraction.

Some people think decision-makers want simple answers to complex problems. This is often the case. Some people think that individuals charged with implementing these simple answers don't like them because the over-simplification can mean that the complex problem, even after careful and expensive design and implementation, will not be resolved. This, too, is often the case. Decision-makers provide funding, via agencies, to researchers, who are under pressure to provide simple answers to decision makers, but more realistic and even complex answers to agencies, which is all for naught if decision-makers tell the agency to implement the simple answer. It was no less than Einstein who said "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

The Buffalo Bill's Cole Beasley has declared that he would rather retire from the NFL than get a vaccine. God supposedly informed Beasley how to respond, but Beasley apparently did not listen to the parts about God's creations such as science and other humans, or whether God had anything to do with the NFL's helmet mandate (which may not have been effective for Beasley). He apparently only cares about winning a Super Bowl, but whether God has this in his plan for Beasley is unclear.

Skinny jeans. Never owned a pair, although several lifetimes ago I did have tight jeans, but that was more an artifact of simple growth. I also had shredded jeans, but that was only an artifact of not being willing or able to buy and break-in new jeans. Never did fashion have any influence on any of these "choices." But now, The Wall Street Journal reports that skinny jeans will date you, quoting fashion designers who are trying to get you to stop wearing what they sold you last time and to buy new stuff from them that will be similarly outdated the next time around. Now I'm not knocking the general concept of fashion but I am knocking anyone that readily succumbs to the sales pitch of a snake oil salesman (and of course the snake oil salesmen themselves). "They" say that such a fashion faux pas says "I'm an out-of-touch millennial clinging to a trend my dad ditched years ago." You should say "I'm an in-touch person who knows what I like and I'm too sophisticated to succumb to the sales pitch of some fop's holier than thou attitude, so bugger off." I do sort of like the "dad ditched" observation so I guess I'm not entirely averse to indirect flattery. It is not only fashion, but virtually any consumer product. It's always easier to not have to think, to not have to make up one's mind, to not need to actually form and hold ideas, beliefs, and opinions. While it's always much easier to let others dictate your life style choices for you, at least you can focus your attention on really important matters like equality, religion, politics, ...

Reuters (14 June 2021) reports that both Hyundai and General Motors "said on Monday they are ... developing flying cars ... (and) could have an air-taxi service in operation as soon as 2025." Hyundai appears to think that such "urban air taxis" could be operational domestically by 2028 and possibly before 2025. GM appears to see a longer pathway to 2030. I have no real problem with the technology, although it's a bit troubling that these companies feel the need to over inflate the concept.

First of all, call it what you want but it is NOT a flying car. It's an aircraft that looks like a helicopter, takes off and lands just like a helicopter, performs in the same air space as does a helicopter, and will address the same demand types as helicopters. Instead of a single large rotor providing lift and thrust, these "air taxis" will use multiple, smaller rotors. There are no conventional surface driving aspects what-so-ever. There is not a single thinking person on the planet that when first seeing this technology would say "Hey, a car that can fly!"

Second, air taxis will initially be piloted but may eventually become autonomous. If this can be achieved before actual cars themselves finally achieve autonomous status, then perhaps we can see the media hype that "non-flying helicopters will soon be seen on our roadways." If you expect any autonomous transportation options any sooner, then you'd better click your heels together and repeat "there's no place like Oz, there's no place like ...

Update: I just saw an older article in The Week (30 April 2021) entitled "Flying Cars: This time they may be real." The Week presents multiple published viewpoints on many issues, including this one (here accompanied with a picture of the EHang "quadcopter" drone). The Economist positioned this technology "midway between a cab and a helicopter" -- a bit odd since these vehicles would provide service in the manner of a taxicab but would perform them precisely as a helicopter. In terms of technology it is a helicopter, and helicopters currently provide cab-like transportation services in the same market in which these vehicles would operate. I side with Andrew Paul in Input magazine who dismisses not the technology but the business model as being limited to just a few, high-return markets. You know, the same market that our current helicopters service.

Who studies transportation? My question first needs to be re-framed because the "who" needs to be expanded. The who, what, why, when, where, and how of transportation are dimensions that are considered by everyone who studies transportation, in general, and travel behavior, in particular. But who studies transportation? What drives the individuals who may have used transportation everyday but who typically have no educational exposure to anything that was transport-related? What paths did today's transportation professionals follow? In other words, the who, what, where, when, and how of their journeys from zygote to now. This is not simply an academic question but has as its objective a means to better attract people to, and better educate them in, the broad field of transportation.

Planology can be defined as the belief that people and things should conform to one's imagined ideal, whether it be residing in cities, public and shared modes of transit, or the lost tribe of millennials wandering in a suburban wasteland is search of the old ways. The planologist seeks to minimize their cognitive dissonance with mantras that condemn those who have strayed (car users, suburbanites, and baby boomers) while praising the elements of their imagined eden (transit users, city dwellers, and millennials) that they themselves embrace but cannot effectively impose on others.

How much of this cognitive dissonance is dictated by the tenets of the faith? Does one who aspires to work as a planologist need to embrace the cannon? Can they challenge these tenets when faced with new information and still remain in the tribe? Can a planologist be open to conflicting beliefs and opinions and still be a planologist?

Is this really a thing? Before coining a term that possibly has already been in circulation, I searched and found a 1937 paper by J. M. de Casseres entitled "Principles of Planology: A Contribution to the Scientific Foundation of Town and Country Planning" (Town Planning Review, 17(2), 103-114). The author immediately summarized: "'A place for everything and everything in its place' -- that, briefly, is the task of planology." Pretty much what I was saying. Engineers were supposed to be the anal bunch, but perhaps not?

An attendee at a UCITS Webinar (9 June 2021) posted the following question: How do we differentiate between a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and a CBO (Community-based Organization)? Are they essentially the same thing or are CBOs only found in disadvantaged communities while NIMBYs are found only in affluent ones? Good question, the moderator hesitantly and somewhat embarrassingly commented.

Webinar speakers did not have immediate (or good) answers, possibly because the difference is one of those things that when you see it, you just know (I won't mention the obvious but completely inappropriate analogy). On one hand, CBOs include a broad range of community-oriented organizations, formal and informal, acting in a wide range of functional, institutional, and geographical spaces. On the other hand, NIMBYs, while often acting in chorus, are usually individuals promoting their own self-interest. Well, both are essentially representing self-interest, so is it just a matter of names and numbers? Those who have privilege, wealth and access to people in power, are deemed NIMBYs; those who lack these resources can only gain political power united in common cause, are deemed CBOs. There's clearly a difference, but it seems to be between those who have and want to keep, and those who don't and want to have. "Them that's got shall get. Them that's not shall lose."

Representative Louis Gohmert (R, Tx) recently asked a senior forestry service official (!) if changing the moon's orbit around the Earth, or the Earth's orbit around the sun, might be a solution for climate change. This almost makes one forget about injecting bleach into humans as a COVID-19 remedy. But we do need to find a way to alter some orbits: those of truly ignorant sycophants who still orbit the black hole of Me/Now.

Our community list serve has had a couple of 'anonymous" posts of late. Nothing controversial, except for the fact that they were anonymous. The user email is shown, so the poster could be contacted, but the post itself does not provide transparency as to who made the post. List serve moderators decided that all posters should provide their name if their email address does not contain identifying information and a few residents posted in opposition to this policy. An earlier post that had been taken to task had argued that a lack of tenure limited the ability of some to express opinions other than anonymously, given that our residential and work communities are essentially one in the same. After some thought, I made the following post:

I agree with the named albeit "unelected dictatorial admins" (aka volunteers). Rights come with responsibilities: if you have an opinion, own it. If you fear retribution for expressing your opinions then we have a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed. In the interim, there are other ways to channel information anonymously.

I would never share anything posted directly to me from anyone without their permission, although this can be a problem on our list serve with many frequent contributors clicking reply (more often "reply all") first and then thinking later. I believe that some forums have a price of admission, such as a letter to the editor of a newspaper: what you gain in reach you might lose in privacy. This makes one think about what they're going to say. I rarely post to the list serve but when I do I write my response off line and then let it simmer for a while. I'll usually re-edit, think some more, and more often than not delete the post.

I also understand that many of society's systems don't work well because privacy is not guaranteed, including situations often much more serious than a community post. An agent working on one's behalf can serve as a conduit, with the agent taking responsibility. We have people posting for friends and neighbors all the time. And since the list's moderators know the names of those registered, I would think that privacy might be limited. If posters are allowed to use an alias, which in most cases should not be a problem, what happens when controversial comments are made (this is rare but has happened on our list serve)?

Opinions usually do not stand alone. The reputation of the one expressing the opinion, in addition to its clarity of expression, often determines the weight with which the reader values that opinion (and in turn values the one expressing it). This does not mean that everyone should not be able to express opinions. In fact, the more I think about it, perhaps the value of being able to express an opinion, anonymous or not, outweighs the transparency of disclosure that is otherwise valued.

After viewing a Virtual Community Meeting from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on their South County Transportation Study, I concluded that what was presented was very good, but what's missing was very problematic. It's people, not vehicles, that demand travel. Given the essentially zero growth rate in California, issues of housing affordability, likely changes in travel and residential behavior as the pandemic recedes, and movement in Sacramento that the State would like a greater influence in local land use decisions, it would seem that proposals that either directly address growth and land use, or at least explicitly recognize their impact, should be a formal part of any long term planning effort.

Some options, likely problematic to some people, can nevertheless make sense. Removing bottlenecks can improve traffic flow and remove excessive congestion and associated impacts without significantly increasing network capacity. Addressing first/last mile issues via innovative technology options has a similar justification. Of course "the usual suspects" were rounded up, including capacity increases on both roads and transit as well as pricing or subsidization of, well, both roads and transit, with little sense of the contradictory nature of such choices. OCTA was of course seeking public input but perhaps some public education is equally important. Indirectly controlling the growth in trips was explicitly considered, but no options were proposed for directly controlling the growth in trip makers. Pricing roads, typically perceived as very unpopular, is being considered, but effectively pricing land under market forces was not. "I'm shocked, shocked."

History is taught, or at least learned, as isolated facts, perhaps streamed chronologically but still not linked regarding concepts, themes, nor the connecting underlying forces. This was true within a defined course, and even more so between courses. This was even true to a degree in the sciences, but not in math. Similar to learning a language, in fact best thought of as a language, math requires continuity. It is best mastered via immersion with learners of similar ability and interest.

While I've never been enamored with the concept of gifted students, it is difficult to argue that for whatever reason there are not some students who more readily master certain concepts, whether these concepts be related to math, music, drama, or football. In public high schools, should choral groups, drama performances, or football teams comprise students randomly assigned, mixing those with advanced skills with those who lack the basic knowledge and possibly the basic desire to be there? Some may argue that these cases are exceptions, or primarily extra-curricular, but these cases are critical for many students to advance their education and personal growth further, just as math and other curricula areas are. If an future engineer or scientist is to have the opportunity to excel in a skill-appropriate college and in employment in critical areas of the economy, then they must have the opportunity to excel in high school.

There is a problem with drawing lines. Students just below a cut-off line for advanced math are about as capable as those just above. The top ten percent, however, are not the same as the middle ten percent, who in turn are not the same as the bottom 10 percent. There's also the question of how these groupings are determined and whether they are regularly reassessed so those that excel can move forward and those who do not move back.

There will always be differences due to support provided outside of the classroom. It's not a level playing field, for many reasons that can only be resolved by addressing society's problems with equity and wealth and not by assuming that all math learners should be placed in the same learning environment. Resources must be equitably allocated to all levels of learning, including teachers. The best teachers are likely assigned to the best students, but all learners need quality teachers. This can be a particular problem with math, particularly at the lower K-12 levels when math skills are first developed. Making everyone learn at the same level may have some benefit for those in the middle, but neither the best nor the worst students will be better off.

I long ago concluded that Me/Now never really wanted to be the President. More precisely, he didn't want the duties, he just wanted the perqs. Being able to say whatever he desired, whenever and wherever he wanted, with a guaranteed audience and no legal, ethical, or factual ramifications, well, he was happy as a pig in shit. The ultimate cosplay sex.

Cosplay is more than just some Halloween fun: it can become a lifestyle. I'm pretty sure that's indeed the case of Me/Now but today I started thinking about the rising number of Me/Now types on the planet. Me/Now himself was clearly not the first -- he had many role models for inspiration. But now I'm thinking that every cosplay star has an entourage of sycophants, people typically explained away as groupies with benefits. But now I think it's really that they're all engaged in cosplay. All extreme politics is little more than cosplay. The problem is that we all have to watch and we all bear the brunt of their play.

An Op-Ed in today's LA Times (29 May 2021) by Samuel J. Abrams is entitled "Millennials, like their parents, now long for the suburbs." Abrams writes "before the pandemic, the media focused on urban millennials and their 'sharing economy' and 'friendship group'-based lifestyles in places like Los Angeles and New York." So did far too many academics and practicing planners, although Abrams politely attributes these media portrayals of "millennials as being very different from their parents and grand-parents in housing and life choices" as being simple misunderstandings. It's apparently become much more important to be first than to be correct or even insightful. I admit to an annoyance with binary bias and these millennial and sharing topics are yet additional examples. See prior posts at Suburgatory; (G)Olden Days; Twice Upon a Time; Hippies and Millennials; The Gig Is Up?; Premature Explication; and Emerging Trends.

An editorial in today's LA Times (27 May 2021), "Scrap the outdated plan to expand the crowded 710," dished out lots of (mashed) potatoes before they got to the meat. Over two thirds of the way in they make the brief statement "Clearly, Metro and Caltrans need to do something with 710 Freeway -- it's bad for good movement and travelers, and it's a burden on the neighboring communities." We've heard "need to do something" as the standard response to most any transportation problem, but now is the time when we need ripe ideas, but also a reversal of direction. Any plan to widen the 710 will have a magnified impact on neighboring communities, including the demolition of homes and businesses and an increase in noise and particulate pollutants.

The editorial flounders, however, stating "the old model of just seizing land and mowing down homes is not the answer, particularly in dense urban areas." Particularly? This is the only place this was done, but point taken. It continues with "widening a freeway to ease traffic actually induces more people to drive, which results in congestion and air pollution at least as bad as before the project." Let's keep with the theme expressed in the editorial by presenting things in reverse order.

First, even if you buy the "Big Mistruth" of induced demand, proponents claim that most but not all of the gained capacity is quickly consumed. I've seen reviews of empirical studies claim as much as 90 percent so consumed. Even the proponents of induced demand don't think it will be "at least as bad as before."

Second, even if it is 90 percent consumed, the implication is that more people are traveling, which of course is the primary reason the public sector provides transportation infrastructure and operations in the first place. If your local school is overcrowded, and you build classrooms which are quickly filled to 90 percent of capacity, is this a bad thing? It's preconceptions that mislead our post-analysis.

Third, from just where does this induced traffic come? The first and obvious (but often ignored) source is explicitly not an inducement of current residents to travel more but an accommodation of growth of new residents and businesses. How many areas that are not growing are expanding transportation infrastructure? The second source is not an inducement of new trips, but the same number of trips being made but taking advantage of the new capacity (and at least initially newly reduced costs of travel) by now using different routes, at different times, by different modes, and/or to different destinations. Different routes and times imply (induce?) a change that frees capacity on the old routes or at the old times, which are likely local arterials or the shoulders of the peak periods. It's a market equilibrium where users optimize their choices. It's also something that current travel forecasting models address explicitly, so there should not be any surprises when the project is opened. New modes and destinations work the same way, however, there may be concerns regarding these shifts in user preferences. Travel to farther destinations and reduced transit trips can lead to increased vehicle miles traveled. I have seem mode changes from freeways to commuter rail when facing the combination of $5 per gallon gas and congested freeways, but then the rise of electric vehicles and pandemics could have the opposite effect. But these are not induced trips: they're shifts in traffic.

So can there be induced trip making by a stable population? Increased affluence is associated with increased travel but studies of travel time budgets and trip generation rates over many decades in many metropolitan areas have shown these factors to be extremely stable. So can there be induced trips? Only if that stable population had their trip rates suppressed or time budgets exceeded by the costs of travel on the current transportation network. Sort of the Russian bread line phenomena: bread lines formed not because appetites increased but because bread was made available.

Fourth, returning to backing up with fruit, we get to the unfortunate and often racist history of siting transport "improvements" for the benefits of the wealthy and white and at the cost of the poor and non-white. While this is history and obviously should not be accepted, it should also reflect the fact that land aquisition in poor areas is much cheaper than in wealthy areas. Allowing dirty trucks on freeways is also much cheaper than restricting goods movement to clean trucks (a direction in which California is moving). These choices must be evaluated by decision-makers that represent the communities being impacted, the region's economy and population flows, and everything in between. This is not conventional decision-making. This is where the editorial should have started, rather than turning to conventionally incorrect ideas on how things supposedly work and instead focus on what can justly be done. Start by getting rid of dirty trucks and make better use of the Alameda rail corridor, and stop looking at bike lanes along a busy freeway. Consumers everywhere will pay a little, and the people living in these areas will benefit a lot.

... those who understand binary and those who don't. As binary-based information technology assumes increasing cultural importance and permanence, a recurring theme has appeared in these posts regarding the binary thinking that increasingly permeates ideas and opinions. Binary bizarrity has included: More Binary Minds on cities and transportation (10 April 2021); Passive Aggressive: Take 2 on fossil fuels (29 September 2020); The Beginning of the End? on the role of cities (22 June 2020); Belief on beliefs and philosophy (18 April 2020); Two Trains on politics (5 January 2020); Not Another Manic Monday on Uber drivers (25 November 2019); There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch on free tuition (16 Sept 2019); and the first generic post Binary Bias (8 July 2019). My prior post addressed "The Beautiful Boulevard" plan for LA's Eagle Rock area.

"The Beautiful Boulevard" plan for LA's Eagle Rock area is not unlike many urban planning efforts to re-purpose streets the same why that land uses have been re-purposed for, well, centuries. The New York Times asks "Can Removing Highways Fix America's Cities? Nadja Popovich, Josh Williams, and Denise Lu (May 27, 2021) write about, and the interactive graphics show, the before, during, and after aerial photos of domestic cities without, with, and the projects and plans of once again being without, urban freeways. By sheer chance I've seen the case studies of Buffalo, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh which featured deteriorating infrastructure as a primary reason to do something, including to rectify past mistakes. But each of thee cities is a completely different city than that which saw the construction of these facilities. The Beautiful Boulevard is different.

Eagle Rock is older but vibrant neighborhood in the sprawling metropolis that most people consider LA to be. Except on the surface, this proposal is fundamentally different from most of the freeway removal projects discussed in the NY Times article. It does share an activist community that wants change and this is where I sense an IMBYism (i.e., In My Back Yard). Hundreds of people attending a community meeting is, of course, a biased sample that reflects local sentiments but does not attempt to survey the inputs of other users or the impacts that such a restructuring will impose on adjacent neighborhoods (I've seen similar activity in my own community). What is the relative weight of a local community, one that has evolved over decades, and other users of the LA traffic network, communities that have also evolved over these decades.

The initial floor wax bias was introduced with an original design that only reflected a pedestrian environment that just served as a connector between a car and an activity. The current dessert topping bias assumes that it's now a simple matter of tossing out the cars and converting the space based on what local residents now prefer. The cars represent a larger more dominant pattern, one that will not convert to pedestrian trips in the new space or simply "go away." If these trips are forced out, they will make the second-best choice, likely on parallel paths in other neighborhoods. It's like arguments for a VMT tax: let's have users of the transportation network pay for it. The problem is that we are all users, whether we directly travel on these roads or rely on others to deliver the goods and services, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, that makes modern life possible. Everything is connected to everything.

Carolina A. Miranda's LA Times column (7 May 2021), "Imagining density, done in the L.A. way" provides an interesting perspective on "density done intelligently and humanely." But all perspectives, including her column and my response, have biases. She views her intelligent density as minimizing the architectural footprint and therefore sprawl, but the location which she describes is par for the Los Angeles sprawl course where most such critics play. Given the constant pressure of growth in areas such as Los Angeles, density will only delay sprawl in the same manner that capacity will only accommodate growth.

Miranda, however, makes good arguments, and relaxes the reader by writing that increased density "will steer clear of ... 'Manhattanization,' which she deems absurd, or "reactive panic to whatever density legislation state Sen. Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) might be working on." Speaking of Weiner things, Miranda also mentions "California's housing crisis," which really first needs to be defined, particularly with respect to what is being proposed to address it. My son's and daughter's Westwood and WeHo zip codes are the most expensive places to rent in California (and behind only some Manhattan zip codes overall). When demand exceeds supply, prices go up. In response, you can either impede growth or accommodate growth by sprawling vertically (as in Manhattan) or horizontally (as in Los Angeles). Both kinds of sprawl precipitate high levels of congestion and smog, but density will only delay and might eventually worsen these impacts.

But please read her article in which she discusses an LA competition to imagine innovative "low risers" -- higher (not high) density options for housing. She includes interesting facts that LA alleys comprise more total square feet than Manhattan's Central Park and a suggestion to reverse the associated front-back distinction of alleys. On the other hand, she mentions also new designs that share kitchens. Here's some news: it ain't kitchens that are responsible for increased square footage in new developments. It's sprawling bathrooms, closets, and hall ways. But she discusses lots of good ideas. These will not stop sprawl, but they may slow it down, at least to we collectively come to our senses.

A lesson for those who remain blissfully uninformed:

"You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." Harlan Ellison

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Daniel Boorstin

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

A friend saw a strange reference in a paper and thought about a tradition that I had launched many years ago. When completing a dissertation or thesis, students would add to the reference list one fabricated entry that embedded some "inside humor." My own first contribution was:

Zaphod,B. (1954). So Long and Thanks for All the Fish. Vogon Press, Los Angeles.

My preferred spelling of morning is with a 'u'.

The UCI student chapter of the Institute of Transportation Engineers just had their annual banquet night (sans banquet) to present their annual project. Unlike the typical project involving new technologies and quantitative analysis, this year they considered transportation equity. Their preliminary presentation was made to an alumni panel (including me -- they will present to the local ITE professional chapter in a competition next week) and it was borderline excellent. I'll usually judge with a higher standard when a project is well defined, organized, and covers the material to reflect both breadth and depth so I added "borderline" because at the end I was left wanting more. Most people agree that transportation equity is critically important and that the issue's breadth and the diverse range of policy options and funding constraints make this an appropriate topic. The presentation favored breadth over depth but given the more engineering-oriented audience next week, this was probably the right choice. I took a lot of notes and there was excellent discussion (I'll add that the other two panel members were former students and thus were more versed in equity issues than most). But, building upon the student's presentation, more needs to be said:

More 1. The presentation's reference was the California Transportation Plan 2050. Looking 30 years into the future is probably too far for infrastructure planning but it's definitely too far for considering today's policy issues such as equity, environmental justice, and leveraging transportation funding for more than just funding transport. Let's focus on 2030 first.

More 2. Terms need to be defined: not only equity but also accessibility, mobility, and related terms. As our perspective evolves, we need to define the common ground on which discussions can occur. It's not that there is a disagreement over definitions, rather, there is a sloppiness with multiple definitions in use.

More 3. In long-range planning, it is easy to conclude that non-motorized transportation is under-valued and that motorized transportation is under-priced, but in discussions of equity one must consider which groups will bear the benefits and costs of proposed changes. Transportation is a public sector provision but it isn't managed as a public utility. Most transportation infrastructure and public transportation options have public ownership, from planning and financing to operations and management, but it is a big step to change the fundamental usage of a highway system which effectively has operated in a laissez-faire fashion for all of our lifetimes.

More 4. What is likely to change regarding transportation infrastructure, technology, and policy? Transportation technology seems to be on a cusp, but the reality is that deployment on public networks is not imminent. Infrastructure cannot change rapidly, nor should it regarding uncertain technology characteristics, for vehicles and for human-vehicle interactions in particular. This does not mean that there will not be big changes but it does mean that it is time to assess which potential changes are most likely. For example, changing parking lanes in dense activity centers to multi-purpose use for ride hailing, public transit, and non-motorized transport is quite possible, but fundamental changes to freeway lanes are not, at least not in the short-run.

More 5. 3Revolution1: Electric Vehicles are not a revolution -- they're been around as long as the automobile. Market share is increasing and the internal combustion engine will slowly but surely be replaced. This change will happen because it will not require big changes in how the public buys and uses cars. Some technology is evolutionary but the fact that the mode is not will allow massive substitutions without most people thinking much about it. What will be evolutionary is the broad changes in energy generation and our power grid, including distributed generation from renewable sources. Your house will likely change a lot but there will still be a car parked in your garage.

More 6. 3Revolutions2: Connected Autonomous Vehicles are a revolution, or more precisely will be a revolution one day. Just not today, tomorrow, or any time soon. There will be equity issues since the cost of CAVs will be substantially higher. How we own and use this technology is yet to be determined. But there is time to think about it.

More 7. 3Revolutions3: Shared use is almost a form of devolution. One is taught in kindergarten to share; from that point on the message becomes I, me, mine. People who prefer cities and public transit will share; people who do not prefer cities and public transit will not. It is incumbent on those who believe otherwise to provide evidence that leopards can change their spots.

More 8. There are many categories that come to mind when addressing issues of transportation equity. People with physical disabilities are clearly important, but significant progress has been made since ADA was enacted in 1990. When social justice is considered, the conversation turns to those living in poverty, particularly people of color. Formal consideration should probably start with assessing the relative level and location for each of these classes.

More 9. Social justice as a prime aspect of transportation equity is closely related to housing. In California, housing is considered a critical issue with median prices in most areas pricing many out of the market. There is also rising homelessness and the California legislature is considering policies that will be revolutionary such as the misguided attempt to do away with single family zoning. Note that population trends, including net migration and birth rates, are declining.

More 10. Transit agencies must operate demand responsive service for transportation disadvantaged groups, a requirement that is tied to the provision of fixed route service in a given area. This can result in the latter not be offered in some areas due to the cost of also having to offer demand responsive service. This suggests that an equity issue might exist where lower income households may not have access to fixed route service because the operator cannot justify the cost of parallel demand responsive service. As new operating modes are introduced, similar unclear choices will certainly be present.

More 11. CEQA has eliminated automobile LOS and replace it with VMT. While the process was biased in favor of the automobile under the LOS standard, it appears that now there is a bias against the automobile under the VMT standard. It does not seem that the alternative of developing equivalent LOS measures for public transit and non-motorized modes was ever considered before the change to VMT, which of course resulted from SB743 and the desire to approve a new arena for the Sacramento Kings (the NBA team, not the politicians). This is related to transportation equity, but not by design.

More 12. User Fees or Gas Taxes -- a rose by any other name. The bottom line is that more funding is needed since the federal gas tax has not been adjusted in over 27 years. While one can argue that EVs do not buy gas and thus do not pay gas taxes (note that 20% of the federal tax goes toward public transit), one could also argue that the environmental improvements of replacing the Internal Combustion Engine and fossil fuels with EVs and renewable energy would justify giving EVs a free ride for the near future. Eventually, an alternative funding method must be implemented but the arguments for VMT taxes have been disingenuous, propose a regressive tax, and have no inexpensive and non-invasive means to measure a vehicle's VMT for tax purposes. The regressiveness of the tax is a particular important issue for transportation equity.

More more ... All of the above plus Complete Streets, TNCs, Active Transportation, and more makes it quite clear that our engineers need to know a lot more about planning and policy and that our planners need to know a lot more about design and technology if we are to successfully address any of these issues.

We are at new extremes of liberty, thanks to the internet, regarding free speech. Corporations, especially those who brought us the internet, are at perhaps the height of their "corporate" freedoms. Our systems, society, and culture suffer from a lack of ownership. Extreme behaviors dominant, with weakening societal norms and a lack of leadership no longer capable of reining these behaviors. People cling to freedoms that are only threatened in the minds of charlatans who can gain power only through fear and lies. It is possible that underlying currents indeed are irreversible. Maybe we need to recalibrate. Jared Diamond wrote:

"People often cling to values when they no longer make sense. For example, a commitment to the values of individual freedom and independent self-sufficiency make it difficult to accept that new conditions may require some form of government planning and curbing individual rights."

Today's ASCE SmartBrief provided this factoid that I turned into an e-mail quiz for my colleagues, entitled "Transportation Quiz of the Day (Hall of Fame Edition)":

"What was the first major airport to provide an integrated system of paved landing surfaces, lighted runways and a terminal complex consisting of hangars and operating facilities? This airport's control tower -- built in 1929 to manage air traffic and advise pilots of wind, air traffic and field conditions -- was the first of its kind." (ASCE SmartBrief)

It gets even better (or worse, depending on your perspective). Cleveland is also home to the Guardians of Traffic, eight huge sandstone pylons on what is now called the Hope Bridge which were designed to "typify the spirit of progress in transportation." The backstory on the Guardians (and on the bridge name), given you've got this far with this post, is worth your time.

Update: On 23 July 2021 the Cleveland MLB team changed their name to the "Guardians." As SI explains, the new name "pays homage to the Guardians of Traffic statues near Progressive Field in Cleveland, located on the Hope Memorial Bridge."

I don't want a car to drive me and I certainly don't want a car to watch me watching it drive. The LA Time article (3 May 2021) starts by referencing a Tesla acknowledgement in a financial filing on Wednesday that "it may never be able to deliver a full self-driving car at all." Hmm.

Apparently, if a driver is not "actively paying attention" then the car will slow down and pull over to the side (unlike current programming, or lack there of, which has the car simply run into a tree or a semi). Drivers not actively engaged are one of the primary causes of accidents, even in regular cars, but the more automated the interaction becomes with the car, the less immersed the driver will become. The problem might be that society has created a system where everyone is allowed to drive, regardless of their skill level, attention span, or state of mind. A system that stops a driver from driving when certain conditions apply is good, but that should be the end of interaction.

For years I've mocked predictions that CAVs will soon be deployed. Now it seems that even Tesla agrees. But, and I did not see this coming, a form of autonomous vehicles may soon be deployed, not with autonomous driving capabilities but with theater seating, massage chairs, and direct links to your bank accounts.

I get a paper copy of the LA Times everyday, but ...

Fewer people use it every day: rEAdership is down and won't be coming back. There are better alternatives based on accessibility and environmental impacts. Soon, perhaps, users won't have the paper choice for rEAding, or should others be forced to make my choice?

Fewer people use it every day: rIdership is down and won't be coming back. There are better alternatives based on accessibility and, with EVs, environmental impacts. Soon, perhaps, users won't have the transit choice for rIding, or should others be forced to make the transit choice, too?

Is it time for the Times to wake up, smell the (Fair Trade?) coffee, and realize that choices between media and modes (and single family homes) all come down to economics and market demand? Regulating markets is the yin to the yang of capitalism, but there is no part of regulation and legislation that suggests that government should be defining individual behavior. An invisible hand could be wielded that gently encourages individual actors to behave in a manner that leads toward a better system for all. Is that what the Times is trying to do? Hmm.

It's always something: random musings from the last month or so ...

• Faculty Diversity. Nationally, college faculty turnover is less than 5 percent. I assume that the majority of this is either through retirement (which would seem to increase diversity) or unfavorable tenure decisions (which could decrease diversity). College student turnover, however, is on the order of 20 percent (due to graduation or dropping out). One should not expect faculty diversity to reflect student diversity any more than we should admit students to match faculty diversity.
• Fake-checking. If you still believe that Me/Now won, then you should have no problem believing multiple Fox News hosts claiming that Biden is banning meat and a book by Kamala Harris is included in gift bags given to minor immigrants on arrival to the U.S., despite the fact that these same Fox News talking heads had to retract their statements the next day as being "incorrect."
• QAnonsense. Conspiracy Theories ain't what they used to be. The essence of a good conspiracy theory is some level of plausibility -- that some event that actually occurred, supposedly or even officially in a particular way, is hypothesized to have either occurred in a very different way or perhaps not at all. But what today passes for conspiracy theory is just utter stupidity.
• Rush'ed. "The left wants control, and conservatives advocate for freedom." Freedoms advocated by the right are precisely those freedoms the right has enjoyed while others have not. The elite with economic, political, and cultural power certainly to not grant others freedom of choice regarding woman's rights, gender rights, or even majority opinions. Their "freedom" is simply "control" of the status quo. Capitalism does not work without ethical oversight, which means a free press, checks and balances, and regulations where needed. The control sought by most, including the left, is only what is required to achieve equality.
• Cognitive Dissonance. An LA Times (5 March 2021) front page article discussed "radicalism in the pews" and conveyed a case where a long-time church-goer had succumbed to "a barrage of conspiracy theories" and after being told by the pastor that she had been "tricked by lies" she stopped attending. I can surmise only that some people are more likely to buy into a fringe theory because they're looking for someone or something to show them the way, whether it be a Trumpian politician, a Falwellian minister, or anyone else selling something out of greed or ignorance.

As usual, I had a full morning "working at the office" (but never leaving home despite being only a 10 minute walk from my UCI office) ending with a thought-provoking Zoom webinar from UCSD on walkability and public health. I then grabbed some lunch and moved to my backyard, watching a variety of bees and bugs, lizards and birds, negotiate their busy days while surrounded by flowering vines, both red (campsis radicans) and violet (bignonia violacea) trumpet vines providing a wall of color all around me. Plants and birds and rocks and things can be seen in the desert's tranquility, or in a corner of one's backyard. I suddenly realized that I was living a suburban mullet metaphor: business up front, party in the back. I never understood the mullet but even more I never understood the meme. But then I also never understood the compulsion of many people to have everyone else live with their approved hairstyles, modes of travel, or neighborhood designs. Have you ever seen a picture showing side by side the space consumed by 100 people with mullets, 100 people with fades, and 100 people with no hair at all?

In the middle of a Zoom seminar which considered the influence of walkability and other elements or urban design on public health, I noticed my Zoom photo, taken at the beginning of the pandemic sitting outside at a restaurant on Melrose in West Hollywood. The photo was taken after we had just walked two blocks from my daughter's townhouse through an extremely "walkable" neighborhood. My assessment of what constitutes walkable was broad and personal, based on aspects such as street design, low-rise housing, street trees, and many other people walking dogs and jogging. It could have been a PSA for living in a walkable community.

The seminar was presenting some graphics on what constitutes walkability when I noticed my Zoom photo on the side. I thought of the photo it had recently replaced, one taken years earlier at a country ice cream stand overlooking Owasco Lake in upstate New York (I had lived just down the road many years before). That area had few if any characteristics of being walkable, but I then thought about the various places I have resided in between, focusing on my home of the past 30 years in Irvine California (see Venice, Los Angeles, Irvine before you draw any knee-jerk conclusions). Unbeknownst to most, and as with most Irvine neighborhoods, my community of cul-de-sacs is quite walkable. While such cul-de-sacs prevent automobiles from traveling through, non-motorized trips can exit on walkways at the end of most cul-de-sacs. What exists is essentially a grid for non-motorized travel, and one that is well shaded, well lit, and very much utilized by people walking dogs and jogging. And by people walking to work. I live in University Hills, a faculty housing development on the UC Irvine campus, and I have a 10 minute walk via a greenway from my front door to my office. Sometimes, even before the pandemic, I'd work from home; other days I might head to campus two or three times (not even counting walking my dog twice a day). Activities and the associated travel can be examined in the field of complex travel behavior, where the habits and subtleties of daily life, on the surface, can make the complex seem simple. The same well applies to the land use pattern that defines the canvas on which we paint each day. Any model that attempts to explain this dance can only capture a small part of the underlying truth.

Some Texas members of Congress are asking that the federal infrastructure plan include a $26 billion barrier structure to protect the Texas coast from hurricanes [ NBC News (27 April 2021) ]. After the reaction that several Texas legislators had to California's climate change induced wildfires over the past few years, I'd like to suggest they take their former leader's sage advise and, instead of asking others to help, start raking their beaches ...

When I have an internet problem, I call Cox on my land line telephone, quickly get to a service representative, and I've always been able to resolve the internet issue with that voice call. When I have a cell phone problem, I call Verizon but I'm forced into an internet (or cell) chat with a digital assistant. So, I can use a phone to address my Cox internet problems but I have to use the internet to address my Verizon phone problems? WTF?

It gets better. An email from Verizon advertised a money saving offer and a 800 number to call. That 800 number turns out to be their regular automated number that has no option to talk to an actual person (anyone remember Ernestine?). The closest option available is that they will send a code to my cell phone (I'm talking on another provider's land line, which Verizon surely knows) for access to their online digital assistant. Remember, Verizon emailed me to call this number to change my cell phone plan. I finally gave up on the phone conversation (which I'm sure was their system's design intent) and went online, had a brief exchange with the digital assistant, but was able to get a real assistance in chat (the real assistant was indistinguishable from the digital assistant, but what's reality anyway). The assistant gave me an internet link to the information needed to talk on the phone to an actual person.

Bad site (well done, Verizon, since only the most tenacious of pissed off customers would continue). You know that little character on the right-hand-side of a dialog box that corresponds to a pull-down menu? Well, not for Verizon's site. That character does nothing. You have to click on the left where the word "select" faintly appears. Then it asks for a call back number: turns out that it's preset to allow the number to be entered without typing in a hyphen after the third and sixth digits, but if you do type a hyphen or a period, nothing happens and no error message appears. The only indication that something's wrong is that nothing else can be entered on the page. After solving that puzzle, I had to select one of the radio buttons to select "a time for a live agent to call you back at your convenience." At my convenience? Right now would be at my convenience. That question should say "at Verizon's convenience." Full disclosure: one button did say "right away (current wait 5 minutes)" which doesn't seem to be Webster's "right away." Let me remind you again that Verizon essentially asked me (via email) to call them on the number provided, which is apparently a prank of some sort.

Finally, Halston got on the line. Quite pleasant and competent (no wonder they keep him away from the hoi polloi responding to Verizon email requests). I think things worked out. A cheaper plan and unlimited data (although the comparison provided via an internet link was anything but clear as to what I had just changed). Halston also informed me that there was indeed a way to get directly to a human operator after dialing the standard 1-800 number. As soon as the digital assistant starts up, type *611 and then ignore all subsequent requests from the assistant to do something that 99.9 percent of callers would likely do. After (not) doing so about three times, I was told a human operator will magically be summoned (sounds a bit like rubbing a genie bottle three times, but be careful what you wish for). This *611 option is not something that Verizon wants you to know. Then again, maybe it's just one more thing that they do want you to know because they need material for Tik Tok videos. Did I mention that I can get free Disney+, Apple Music, and Discovery+ "on Verizon" for six months? Lucky guy, hey?

Update: OK. Not so lucky, since I had to go through that gantlet once again (that *611 BS was just that). When one signs up for a cheaper alternative, one expects to get a cheaper alternative. After repeated questions, Halston assured, reassured, and did so once again that nothing else would change. The small print on the bill was missed but the $30 increase was not. Turns out that Autopay now excludes via credit card. This is not an entirely unreasonable change ... had they told me. So, in summary, Verizon has the best network service in my area, but they also have the worst customer service, worst web site, and worst billing statements that I have ever had the misfortune of negotiating. T-Mobile perhaps?

There's a tradeoff between rights and responsibility, and there's always a fight over who gets to decide. A fight because there are usually winners and losers -- and not just individuals but often an entire way of life.

"If I can just get off of this LA freeway
Without getting killed or caught
I'd be down that road in a cloud of smoke
For some land that I ain't bought"

Maybe it was the ebbing promise of success in trying to make it in LA that led to the song, but I'm pretty sure that many similar stories could be told by others trying to make it, albeit less lyrically or soulfully.

Over the past decade, former Texas governor and US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry made a series of proud but misinformed pronouncements: on induced energy demand and power plants [ 6 July 2017 ]; on America's "hostility to coal" [ 26 June 2017 ]; on science and not economics being the dismal science [ 8 Sept 2011 ]. Now we have LA Times columnist George Skelton (8 April 2021) pontificating that California's Governor Newsom "has allowed single-minded health experts to all but run the show" (perhaps he has other experts in mind to make literally life and death decisions on public health). "We lean too heavily on ... 'science' which is perpetually changing anyway" (unlike, he implies, the solid bedrock of economics and politics). Skelton later and sheepishly appears apologetic but only after stepping in the cow patty that he himself dropped. So, who you gonna call?

"Can L.A. public transit survive the pandemic ridership collapse?" asks the typically insightful Nicholas Goldberg in an LA Times Op-Ed (9 April 2021). First, but looking back, this is not simply a pandemic ridership collapse, but rather a continuation of an earlier collapse during the Great Recession twelve years ago. Transit ridership never recovered from that event and for many of the same reasons mentioned by Goldberg for declines over the past year. Second, and looking forward, Goldberg says that "to fight climate change, reduce pollution, encourage tourism, ease congestion -- basically, to be a 21st century city -- Los Angeles needs a robust transit system." He later doubles down with "Los Angeles cannot continue on as a gas-guzzling, greenhouse gas emitting, traffic clogging city of cars for much longer." For most of the past 50 years, these comments would have nicely and correctly summarized the choice. But is it still binary?

A shift to public transit would fight climate change by reducing pollution and decreasing fuel consumption, but would it encourage tourism (hardly) or ease congestion (any shift to transit is essentially a capacity increase on roadways). More importantly, what defines a 21st century city? How about a sustainable growth-controlled metropolis featuring full conversion to electric vehicles (ideally smaller EVs -- think Think City size) with suitable levels of autonomous and shared operations that would complement forms of public transit entirely different from the bus and rail vehicles of today? LA would no longer be a gas-guzzling, greenhouse gas emitting, traffic clogging city. Is this a binary vision? No, since neither of these extremes is likely to occur. We will not see a 2050 IGY Los Angeles where public transit dominates and we will not see a full conversion to EVs, CAVs, shared modes, and other TransTech visions. Something in between perhaps?

Grief is the price of love, made all the more dear by having to bear the cost after love departs.

A gas tax? A mileage tax? The general fund? Discussion is underway as to how to fund Biden's infrastructure bill. Secretary of Transportation Buttigieg indicated that all options were on the table but Biden appears wary of implementing user fees given current pandemic impacts on the the economy. I would not be surprised to see a bundle of funding mechanisms.

Sam Graves (R-Mo) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, says he strongly supports a vehicle mileage tax since all users "should pay their fair share for the roads they're using." One needs to define use. It's not only individual travel but virtually all products and many services reach consumers by the way of roads, and the majority of public transit riders are using roads. It is not an exaggeration to say that everyone benefits from roads. The cost of roads will thus be borne, ultimately, by consumers, and not just by drivers. Even when one considers the actual movement of a vehicle over a roadway, is usage defined by the lanes miles being consumed or the wear and tear on the underlying pavements? Longer and larger vehicles consume more space and cause more damage. It is the sheer mass of large trucks that damages pavements, although it's the sheer numbers of passenger vehicles that cause congestion. While congested traffic is polluting, it is not actively consuming vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A gas tax applies directly to the fuel being consumed so user costs reflect the rate of consumption. Users can opt for fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce their costs and decision makers only need to 'say when" to adjust the tax. This benefit does however lead to one problem with the fuel tax: fossil fuel itself is a major contributor to environmental problems, although fossil fuels and thus the associated fuel tax are slowly but surely on the way out. An alternate fee structure will be needed but in the interim a simple indexing of fuel taxes to inflation would address overall revenue flows in the short term without additional administrative expense. In a prior post I suggested indexing fuel taxes to congressional salaries so when they give themselves a raise, the fuel tax automatically and proportionately increases.

When California's SB1 raised the fuel tax in 2017, they added a fee for electric vehicles. At some point, a user fee for EVs will be needed but this should be carefully implemented to not discourage the adoption of EVs. A flat fee is fine for the short term, especially given the range and charging limitations which constrain EV usage. The bottom line, regardless of the mechanism, is that the public sector will need more money from all users to provide transportation infrastructure and services. Whether it be an increased gas tax, a VMT tax, or general fund support, users will pay more.

"So my warning ... to corporate America is to stay out of politics. It's not what you're designed for." McWeasal quickly added "I'm not talking about political contributions." In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people with respect to influencing the political process. McWeasal commended the decision, arguing restoration of First Amendment rights for corporations. But the GOP doesn't want corporations to use their influence unless it helps the GOP. The GOP doesn't want individual Americans to have a choice over their personal health care (insurance and abortion) but they want to ensure that no one is impeded by a vaccination ID requirement. The GOP values individual rights including privacy but not so much when it comes down to consumer affairs and surveillance capital. The greatest service the GOP could perform is to place their hearts on their sleeves and just say that all they want is the America of 1950 where only white males possess decision power, all rights, and most wealth, and always will. At least we would no longer have to deal with this weasal hypocrisy.

Does it seem odd that the typical way a young person gets into a bar is to show their driver's license? I once proposed that under-aged people be given a choice: get a driver's license or get a drinking license, but not both. I just received an email that opened: "It shouldn't be easier to buy an assault weapon than to vote." Recent efforts to make voting more difficult for some people (that seems to be the objective) coincide with the most recent mass shooting and the most recent GOP denials of the problem. But unlike drinking and driving (as independent acts) which are privileges, voting and owning guns are constitutional rights. But just like speech and property, there are limits to all rights.

Update: (1 April 2021) "Carrying your gun on your hip can be a pain, especially when you're driving ... Tactical USA is giving away 500 of these stylish black shoulder holsters to American patriots ... For FREE!" So many questions: Is this really a problem? Does WeatherTech offer a cupholder holster? Is this innovative technology for congestion relief? Who ordered the veal cutlet? How did I get on that email list?

How could I have not seen this coming? Death by IT ... that's Infectious Technology, by the way. Our engineering school's undergraduate office, CASA (Curriculum, Analytical Studies, & Accreditation), has always been a quick email away when any student policy or program issues arose. But now "The CASA team is pleased to announce that we have transitioned to the Request Tracker (RT) system." Et tu, CASA?

The most annoying aspect of any question sent to UCI's Office of Information Technology (OIT) is the Request Tracker. OK, maybe never getting a simple answer is more annoying. And all the emails, starting with "we're busy" then "here's your ticket number" then multiple "we haven't heard from you" emails might actually be even more annoying. It's all annoying. And also, in my experience, ineffective. In Henry VI, Shakespeare wrote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." There of course were no IT people at the time.

It works as follows: "to expedite the processing of your request, please include all pertinent information into your email. Once you send an email to the above address, a ticket number will be assigned to your case and a response email will be generated confirming receipt of the request." Really? And "Once your request is resolved, you will receive an email confirming completion of the request." Shouldn't I be the one to determine whether my request is resolved? The new RT includes a "helpful links" page, another sign that it's probably a system that requires a lot more than just helpful links. And "All requests can be reopened by utilizing and responding to the email chain with the ticket number at any time." I'll be sure to keep all those ticket numbers, like everyone else.

I guess we'll all need an RRT -- a Request Response Tracker -- to keep track of all the emails each of these requests will generate. We'll start RRTT (RRT Tag), where our systems will slowly die in an infinite regress of what, huh, what, huh, what, huh, ... But here's an idea: why does anyone with a question even care about the internal processing of a request? Get back to me when you can with an actual answer, not a message that "we're working on it." If you do use this RT system, here's advice not mentioned. If the CASA RT is based on the OIT RT, when you do respond to an email do not respond inline: put your entire message, questions, threats, and comments all at the top, otherwise your inline response will be deleted by the RT.

Last, many thanks for the "helpful hint" that we shouldn't "CC an RT email address in an email to others" since "This will create a storm of new tickets." This is the same as telling the January 6th seditionists not to poke their Trump flagpoles at windows because they might break the glass. I wonder if Henry David Thoreau thought that civil disobedience could be so easy! But, alas, I think it's time for me to retire to a nice pond ... maybe that's their real intent! I'd ask CASA but I don't want to go through the RT root canal process.

There's a problem with all career politicians: they always want to seek higher office, more power, and greater influence. My view is that public service should never be considered a career. More importantly, when an individual runs for an office, they are making a commitment to the public: if the public puts their faith in you, then you must honor your commitment and fulfill the requirements of your position, including completing your term. This means that politicians should consider their election a contract with the people and not just a job that you can conveniently leave when something better comes along. Why should this be the case?

First and foremost, public service is an honor and a commitment. If you cannot fulfill the terms of that commitment, then you should not accept that position and you should certainly not be eligible for a greater expected commitment. Second, there are real costs to abandoning a public commitment for your career choice, including that the position left open must be filled. In some cases, a replacement can be appointed, but this distorts the political process by not reflecting the public's choice. The public's choice can be reflected via a special election, but this comes at a significant public cost.

A Modest Proposal: An individual running for office shall commit to fulfilling the requirements of that office, including completing the full term. If an individual chooses to leave office prior to the end of the term, then that individual is ineligible to run for or serve in any other public office. If a replacement election is needed for an open position, then it can only be scheduled in the regular election cycle. A temporary appointment may be made until the next election cycle but that appointee is not eligible to run for that office in that election cycle.

Recall: California is facing a recall election for our Governor. Some people feel that both the recall and the state referendum processes are in need of reform. A letter in the LA Times suggests that a potential reform would increase the number of signatures required to place a measure on the ballot from 12 to 50 percent -- I'm not sure about the 12 percent but if 50 percent of eligible voters sign a petition to recall an office holder than I think that constitutes a formal recall. While a recall is a legitimate voter right, whatever the process constraints may be, it should also be subject to rules similar to those for elected officials who choose to leave office early. No special elections. The recall will occur as part of the next elections cycle. If a recall petition was approved in 2019, then it would be decided as part of the 2020 General Election; if a recall petition is approved in 2021, then it will be decided in the 2022 General election. Unless the group funding the recall also wishes to pay for the full cost of a special election.

I've concluded that most university faculty are either established or aspiring idiot savants. I differ in at least two fundamental ways: first, I believe that I am neither an idiot nor a savant and, second, I am aware that this belief may be at least partially incorrect.

I started the car and "Little Martha" began to play, the only song composed solely by Duane Allman and one of the last things that he ever recorded. Folklore has the song named after Martha Ellis, a child buried in Macon's Rose Hill Cemetery but, as is often the case, the song may have been about someone else. I was taking one last trip with Bodhisattva and that same song that played when the lights came up at the end of every Allman Brothers Band concert that I ever saw seemed an appropriate recessional for almost sixteen years of shared enlightenment.

A major impact of the pandemic has been on work patterns, and thus on commuting, due to increases in unemployment and working from home. While unemployment is a negative phenomena and thus likely to diminish with the pandemic, it is not clear to what degree telecommuting may be expected to continue in the future. But some things do seem likely. Any model of telecommuting would seem to reduce work travel, but likely increase travel for other purposes. Public and shared technologies are a better fit for commuting and similar repetitive behaviors. If high levels of telecommuting are sustained, peak hour congestion would decrease as would the associated demand for the public provision of related services and infrastructure. And, one would suspect, there would also be a reduction in demand for autonomous and shared modes (which in turn would impact models of vehicle ownership).

Would significant telecommuting effectively spread the peak and allow for a more efficient use of transportation infrastructure, especially public transit? Now would be a good time to explore potential futures. It may prove easier to effectuate desired changes since the status quo has already been significantly disrupted. The devil, as they say, will be in the details.

Note: In January 2019, a year before the pandemic, I posted on a somewhat similar topic ( The Gig Is Up? ). In 2015 two economists predicted that growth in the gig economy "would upend traditional work arrangements." Four years later as the economy started going back to "more familiar work arrangements," they revised their predictions, attributing the prior prediction to lingering impacts of the 2008 recession. Same as it ever was?

Any incident involving any two of these modes, almost always one of the first two with a car, and particularly if the car is an exotic model traveling at a improper rate of speed, brings a public response, as it should. As with virtually all of today's political discussions, such responses tend to be high on emotions and often short on facts. This is not the best path to address these real problems.

For example, a few highly publicized recent accidents led to a Steve Lopez column (LA Times, 14 March 2021) and in turn to response letters to the editor. It's usually easy to tell who's writing the letter by the first paragraph. In one letter today is was "... it's the design of the roadways that causes many collisions." This was not likely from a traffic engineer but most likely a walkable communities advocate. A second letter, placing blame on distracted drivers and a lack of enforcement, was most likely from a cyclist. I am not criticizing these individuals, nor their organizations, each acting in or representing the public good. What I am saying is that one needs to look at all sides of what is actually an incredibly complex issue.

First, despite a steady increase in annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a conventional measure of overall exposure, traffic fatalities on a per capita basis have been in steady decline. There are at least two explanatory factors: a continual improvement in both roadway and vehicle design. While the former most often improves safety for all of the traveling public, vehicle design improvements increase safety for vehicle occupants but a concomitant increase in vehicle size and mass increases injuries and fatalities for pedestrians. What hasn't been a contributing factor, and in my opinion might be as critical of a detrimental element as vehicle design, is a lack of improvement in the quality of drivers.

The first letter writer claims that "traffic engineers know how to design safer roads but the public demand throughput, not safety." Traffic engineers have designed safer roads, but there is a tradeoff between safety and the utility of driving (as there is in virtual every human activity). From my experience, city traffic engineers seek to minimize liability due to injury and fatalities on city streets. This implies that safety is primary (although some argue that the deployment of standardized design of infrastructure and control systems might inhibit any innovative experimentation). But another very good point is made: since we are still poised at the beginning of what will likely be a significant conversion to electric vehicles, now would be the time to address issues of safety regarding vehicle and pedestrian incidents.

The second letter addresses distracted drivers. Can you imagine if all these distracted drivers instead became walkers and bicyclists? Would such a change of modes also change their level of distraction, or would they simply be swapping positions in a bizarre predator-prey relationship? Speed cameras are also suggested but, as with speed traps, these devices have been deployed by revenue-seeking companies working for revenue seeking jurisdictions, and at locations that can generate the most revenue and not necessarily at locations that are the most dangerous. These cameras can cause traffic to switch to alternative routes and can increase rear-end collisions where they are deployed. Would cameras also be deployed to control errant pedestrians and bicyclists?

I hold the image of a pedestrian blithely waltzing into a crosswalk with their eyes cast down toward their cell phone screen and/or wearing ear buds while an equally distracted driver is approaching. Why can't technology design an interconnected app for use by both the pedestrian and the driver? Why can't cars include cameras that sense when a drivers eyes are not on the road. Why can't every crosswalk include a sensor that warns a pedestrian on what may be their last step?

I taught my dog to stay out of the road. In hindsight, I should have tried to teach him that it's cars and not roads that need to be avoided. In any case, with a squirrel or an unfamiliar dog on the other side, all bets were off. I once dropped the leash and he hightailed it down the middle of the road toward a coyote (screaming in pursuit, I barely got there in time, with the coyote likely thinking, hey, Doordash!). The point is, you can teach dogs, and other more intelligent creatures, behaviors that you may not fully trust initially, but that you hope will become automatic down the road.

I occasionally post on our neighborhood's list serve to advise pedestrians, like my colleague posts to advise bicyclists (especially kids at play or riding to school and thus less attentive) to assume that every intersection is dangerous and that every car is out to get you. Of course, this does not address the problem of drivers behaving badly or just not paying attention. I've written about the pros and cons of stricter enforcement before, and also about design flaws at particular intersections. In general, if turning left is dangerous, then don't do it.

I believe that, after car accidents, drowning is the next most common cause of accidental death. We fence in pools, but kids still drown; we provide a range of safety measures at intersections, but accidents still occur. Regarding bicycle violations, I agree that most bicyclists, despite commonly violating current traffic laws, are paying attention to traffic -- cars, pedestrians, dogs, and other bikers -- but this does not apply to many young bike riders. But it does apply to many if not most drivers who can effectively judge their surroundings and choose whether it is safe to execute a rolling stop just like they need to assess safety when making a Right Turn On Red or many other driving decisions.

We do need to encourage safer and more environmentally-friendly transportation, including electric vehicles. On the pro side, they have no emissions and since they are usually less massive, they have less of an impact in a collision. On the con side, they can accelerate rapidly and make little noise so that pedestrians can not hear them (at least those pedestrians not wearing earbuds). And they will still have inattentive drivers in control (don't hold your breath for autonomous vehicles).

In the meantime, selective enforcement is more likely to turn people away from supporting police than it is to catch those rare drivers violating the law.

Does it seem that there's a growing sense of pride in not knowing, or more precisely with being satisfied with knowing overly simple and often erroneous information? Has the glut of information which technology has made available, literally at our finger tips, created a backlash where expressions of ignorance are now emblazoned on hats and t-shirts?

"Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom." Clifford Stoll

"It is astonishing what force, purity, and wisdom it requires for a human being to keep clear of falsehoods." Margaret Fuller

"Anyone who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Not everyone should go to college. No one who goes to college should assume unmanageable debt. Student debt should not be treated differently from any other debt in terms of debt management. However, government (we, the people) should not pay for debt acquisition mistakes of others nor should government encourage those mistakes to be made. We should allow student debt to be delayed, refinanced, or traded for in kind service but it should not be simply forgiven. This should be considered the first lesson for anyone thinking about continuing their education.

"To save us all, gas guzzlers have to die" reads the title of an LA Times Op-Ed (1 March 2021) but I think this means motorized vehicles or, more precisely, vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines (ICE) burning fossil fuels and producing on the order of 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions (about 45 percent in California but much less globally). I also assume that replacing them with, say, electric vehicles, whose power can eventually come from renewable sources, would be acceptable. In any case, we're still only talking about a 40 percent reduction -- a great start -- but much more must change.

The Op-Ed discusses many other elements of change that will be necessary, at least those directly associated with eliminating ICE vehicles (and, indirectly, since an associated overhaul of our electrical grid would also address a shift to less natural gas and more electricity in residences and businesses). The changes to human behavior that will be needed if we do not change our energy and transportation behaviors will be much more severe -- sort of a Texas-sized problem.

"Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice." Robert Frost

... to urban traffic congestion could be AI? ZME Science reports that "artificial intelligence-based traffic management holds the promise of significantly reducing traffic congestion on urban roads." For years I consulted with local jurisdictions to provide better signal timing along high volume corridors, with the usual results of a 15-25 percent decrease in delay. The AI TMS developed by Alibaba reduced traffic congestion in the Chinese city of Hangzhou from fifth worst to 57th.

Let's assume that this AI(n't) actually worked (and it wasn't just the other cities getting more congested). What's the difference between adding more lanes, new links, or better control if all that is effectively done is to increase roadway capacity which, in a growing area, will be readily consumed. Such reducing of congestion is like icing down a fever without ever addressing the underlying disease. Yes, this may make the patient more comfortable, at least for a while. But if the disease is not addressed by the body or other means, then what?

I'm not (totally) knocking AI: such an automated system could effectively update signal timing continually so as to minimize the inevitable straying from optimal timing that will occur when path-demand is induced by the resulting performance improvement. But this is, at best, congestion management, and can't (at least not yet) anticipate changes in destination, mode, or even time-of-day (elements of induced traffic) let alone changes in total trips (growth-based induced demand).

Today's LA Times Op-Ed on housing laments Los Angeles being "stuck in the past -- clinging to development patterns," a sentence that directly concluded with "born out of racist housing policies from the last century that perpetuate segregation and inequality today." I split that sentence because the two phrases are quite different. The second half of this quote holds truth: there have been and continues to be racist housing policies and these must be addressed. The phrase "stuck in the past" is meaningless without context (we don't want racist anything but we may want historical developments maintained) and that context follows with "clinging to development patterns." These phrases provide justification for all that follows including reforming land use laws, especially "in communities that have long resisted density and development." I have argued numerous times why this proposal to "throw out the baby with the bath water" makes little sense. While there are many predominantly white communities in Los Angeles, there are communities of color that are not looking for change (yes, progressive policies do not support social phenomena such as gentrification, but most concerns are much deeper than they appear at first glance). My point has always been two-fold: first, government cannot foster a population behavior (owning a home as the major household economic investment) and then trash it by actively devaluing that investment and, second, there is no "one size fits all" so top-down policies are destined to fail. If single family homes comprise 75 percent of residential property in Los Angeles, through active policy and public buy-in, then any attempt to change this policy can occur only at the edges. This means both marginal changes in land use policies as well as changes at the (spatial) margins of current development.

But I've written about this numerous times. The objective of this post is to report some data for which the LA Times Op-Ed instigated my search. I've previously reported that California is not growing but now, in fact, it appears to be shrinking, perhaps throwing some water on the overheated housing rhetoric. The former 0.5 percent slow growth (that's one half of one percent) is now a 0.18 percent decrease in population in 2020 (this after an effective zero rate of change in 2019). So just why is there a demand for 455,000 housing units? Yes, there appear to be insufficient affordable housing units being built and I'd also expect spatial distribution problems. But people are not only leaving the state but rents are dropping in some major cities due to the pandemic and clearly population is always shifting, something that can and should be analyzed, especially before calling for massive construction that would replace some current housing. I don't think California would want the federal government telling us what to do, and many jurisdictions in California feel the same way about the state. There is a lot that can and should be done but it needs to start at the same level in which it applied: the local level.

So the bottom line is good news and bad news. The good news is that we need to consider housing but first we must analyze how much, of what types, and in what locations, and to do so without throwing the baby out with the bath water. The bad news is that we probably don't need to build more roads, except maybe those heading out of California.

Update: The LA Time reported (20 December 2021) that a second straight year of population decline occurred in California. A 0.44 percent decline was recorded between 1 July 2020 to 1 July 2021 and was attributed to lower birthrates, reduced immigration, and pandemic-related deaths. Immigration appears as a significant factor and is based on pandemic-related restrictions as well as housing prices. The pattern of change was interesting: most inland counties showed positive population growth rates while all nine Bay Area counties showed a population decline. Of note was a comment by the State's chief demographer:

"As long as a number of employers maintain this telework policy, I don't think we will see as many people moving to California."

"This is no time to send wheelbarrows of cash to state and local governments that they simply, factually, don't need." Says Mitch McWeasel, simply but not factually. Also simple to resolve: just negotiate a number explicitly dependent on any state and local shortfalls that actually do exist. I mean, Mitch knows about wheelbarrows of cash since he's delivered quite a few over the past four years to big corporations and the one percenters.

Writing on how new technology seeks to overcome old ways, Matthew B. Crawford (in "Why We Drive") quotes an urbanist who thought that today's cities were the equivalent of flip-phones. Crawford offers a vision of the wealth-driven desire of Big Tech:

"What would it mean to make a city more like a smart phone? Presumably such a city would be one in which a glassy facade of high design opens into a cornucopia of apps tailored to my needs, to be satisfied with maximum efficiency and minimum effort on my part, through mechanisms that were utterly unknown to me."

Update: The Guardian (12 March 2021) reports that "Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision" and quotes one Mike Lydon, a New York-based planner, saying "To bet the farm on technology that redesigns our entire streets and relies on apps and sensors doesn't really jive with how human beings actually use public spaces." While I'm not a supporter of the "hard smart city" vision, I do think that some "soft smart city" strategies can work at the human level. But the term "smart city" has been over-promised: ideas used to be developed, implemented, and evaluated, but now under private sector pressure "hyped" has become the second step. However, when a city is designed it has always been what the designer thinks should be, and whether that "smart" vision is hard or soft, it will likely always be science fiction.

In a prior post, The Once and Future King, I addressed a case of Monomania in Maryland, but a few years earlier I addressed speculation about the viability of a monorail system along the 405 corridor through LA's Sepulveda Pass. I thus very much enjoyed the LA Times editorial on Sunday (21 February 2021) entitled "A monorail in the 405? No." I doubt they read my 3+ year-old post but they reflected my sentiments quite well. The editorial also addressed the expected approval of contracts to study the monorail concept as well as a subway concept, each study priced at about $65 million. All I can say is that it is high time that monorail be derailed.

Update: Surprised a bit by the LA Times editorial's "just say no", I was further surprised by today's Op-Ed reader letters (23 February 2021) in that they focused on reasonable concerns such as cost considerations, regional fair-share coverage, and system connectivity. I can only surmise that there is so much insanity in the world that only those with a more relaxed sense of the greater good focus on such boring (pun intended) problems.

The LA Times juxtaposed two takes on faith on it's Sunday Op-Ed page (14 Feb 2021). Shankar Vedantam describes his "father's secret for an ideal marriage" where "on all matters" his wife was right. I can see but not buy the logic and I certainly can't see how such a situation could ever be ideal. The author does have a point, buried well below his premise. People change and thus so do their relationships, so one can't tell with any certainty what the future will be. But if "all happy unions need to have" an element of delusion, just with whom did the delusion reside in this case?

Perhaps abandoning one's ideas and opinions that run contrary to a spouse's can be balanced by some resulting benefit realized via said acquiescence. Or perhaps the father had no ideas and opinions to express. Perhaps all he wanted was to be happy; perhaps he was. The author ascribes it all to faith (thinking deeply, I find I would agree). Here, his father had faith that his wife was infallible (by implication, was his mother's faith that this was too the case). Is this a form of non-verbal or even non-confrontational communications?

LZ Granderson discusses "tribalism on Sunday mornings" starting with an observation by Martin Luther King Jr. that "11 o'clock on Sunday morning is one of the most segregated hours ... in Christian America." That observation should not be limited to "Christian" America and in fact is perhaps strongest where is doesn't even seem to apply: those who face the greatest segregation are perhaps those who actively practice no religion at all. It seems that some religious practice has become more cultural than a matter of faith, and cultural differences may be the biggest barrier to over-coming tribalism. The Irish band Dead Heroes Club had this perspective: "We breathe together. But still divide in tribes."

Finally: an interesting word with which to end, from both a speaking or listening perspective. It not only says that the speaker is concluding, but it editorializes on what was expended to get to that point. The speaker says "well, if you followed my argument," hoping the listener did but also wondering whether, if not, on which side was the communication failure. For the listener, well, I'm not sure, since I'm most often ahead of the speaker and already drawing my own conclusions. So "finally" is more the speaker's recognition that they probably need to assess how they got to this point, with a bit of relief and perhaps a bit of anticipation.

Note 1: Unbeknownst to me but not surprisingly, there are academic papers that address a speaker's meaning. I wonder how an audience reacts to such a paper being presented, especially when the speaker says "finally ..."?

Note 2: I haven't had such a "finally" thought before but I've cringed in anticipation of a speaker who, when displaying an opening slide providing requisite background information on the speaker and the subject, then proceeds to a slide foreshadowing the presentation, when virtually all presentations follow the same linear format ("oh, well that's novel: after they present their work they're going to draw some conclusions!").

I always got a real kick out of a sign at a dry cleaning business near a favorite breakfast spot. The sign in the window said "Most items $1.29 and up." So, some items were actually less, but most were more? Just how this would best encourage business is beyond me, ignoring the real possibility that many people can't read (and some, apparently, can't write).

I saw something similar in one of the all too frequent tortured English emails encouraging authors to "share research achievements, their perspectives, and practical experiences" in so-called "open access" journals. The one in question was "The American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research" and the email included (at least) two odd statements. The first was to provide "a platform to researchers, academicians, professionals, and students in all areas of computer science." Computer science? In a humanities and social science journal? And the second, which brought me back to that sign in the dry cleaner's window, was "Author Get 20% Discount in our Publication if they Publish up to 10 Papers."

In "Do we need access to every place on Earth?" (LA Times, 7 Feb 2021) Jane Smiley juxtaposes memories of the sights from frequent car journeys down California Highway 1, Pacific Coast Highway, with awareness that the sum total of many people making such trips will endanger the very roadside things that she cherishes. She extends her lament to reflect a relative's concern that California has become too risky a place to live. While she clearly loves much about this environment, she also questions whether she should even be here. The question that she asks, however, is whether "humans really need to have access to every place on Earth?"

She does not appear able to make that decision for herself. That is the tragedy of the commons. One might think that technology could bring what Smiley sees to all, without the environmental impacts that she fears. But that is not the same, that is not a substitute, at least for most people. The problem is as simple as that for any commons: too many commoners.

With little surprise, readers responded to Smiley, mostly pro forma, including unhelpful comments such as "The simplest solution would be to have a few thousand people vow never to drive the road again" and the even less helpful "Let's make Hwy 1 available for pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Imagine." Yes, imagine. Even John Lennon didn't imagine that impossibility. And there's always that common perspective of those living at the edge of any growing development. "Why do they have to keep building and ruin the view for us?" they tell their neighbors from the prior phase who of course were thinking exactly the same thing a short time before.

"I guess I fell in love with her, all it took was just one kiss
But then she said goodbye at twenty-five ... or was it twenty-six?"

No, Virginia, in the IT world there is no Santa Claus for good children who just ask for simple things like being able to sign a form electronically. While children may be (at least occasionally) wonderful, infants are valued only for their future potential. Same for IT. Nothing initially works and those who develop these systems are conspicuously unique in having no ability whatsoever to explain to a potential user how their system works or, more importantly, why it doesn't work. But the system will have every conceivable option that you will never, ever use. One size fits all really fits no one at all.

Take any simple need, such as wanting to sign a form electronically. What is needed is an application that does this and only this. I know how to do everything else already. Maybe Version 2 would be a bit better, but all this really means is that when Version 2 arrives then that's a sign that it's time to consider Version 1, which should be relatively bug-free by then. Long ago, such observations were fodder for jokes about engineers; now, it's about IT folks. I recently had to complete some "fillable pdf form." It required a signature, a field that was neither fillable nor allowed an image to be appended (yes, this is evolving with apps such as DocuSign but I'm pretty sure that such apps will try to do other new and unnecessary things, and poorly so if at all). The bottom line was after completing the form, I needed to print it, sign it, and scan it back in. Any time saved in filling in the form electronically was exceeded by the time required by subsequent steps.

Any general market invention whose application is not readily apparent to the average user is a design failure. An IT corollary of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says: "Any software that aspires to a level of completeness will fail in achieving the original elemental objectives."

Evolution has created a bond between parents and infants that selects for those who hormonally care for infants. The bad news is that, if parents didn't care, then we wouldn't be here. The good news would be that none of the IT folks would be here either.

What did you think of when you read the title of this post? I bet you didn't think of Duke University's Engineering School, but they displayed this tag line in an ASEE eNews ad announcing a new Duke engineering building. Engineering schools and universities can be ambitious, but outrageously so? It is catchy: maybe prospective students (or donors) pay attention to only the smoke and mirrors -- hey, I just did -- so apparently something indeed is out-bloody-rageous (thank you Soft Machine). And I guess "Brilliant Future" was already taken ...

Exactly 100 years ago, another journey started. At century's end, the world remains a better place.

I should have recorded this when I wrote it last September. Like bad luck blues, let's hope it's all in the past ...

Snake Oil: The Me/Now Medicine Show [© mgm]

[verse 1]
Rap your knuckles, sing your blues,
We're rolling down your avenues
With a high colonic that you just can't live without
I'll drain the swamp, wall out the kung flu
I'm the only one that can make it all true
It's what my message to you is all about

[verse 2]
A Big Mac extract's in my elixir
With Chloroquine as the amazing fixer
You gotta buy it now and keep on coming back
We'll shower you with disinfectant rains
And shine UV lights inside your veins
There's no need to social distance or wear a mask

[chorus]
You can be my apprentice, I'm your snake oil man
pushing hate, lies and pain, anyway that I can
but you can't live without me ...
... 'cause I'm making us great again

[verse 3]
The fake news says that my medicine show
Is not as perfect as my sycophants know
All these hoaxes and witch hunts are gonna make me sue
If you think you're ill, don't ask don't tell
And don't expect no test and it's just as well
You gotta get back to work 'cause I've got some golfin' to do

[chorus]

[middle eight]
I'm all thumbs when I am speaking, but I can tweet all day in spades
About Fox and Friends and executive orders I've made
I got one hand on the bible, my favorite book I've never read
I always speak my mind and disavow all the lies that I've said

[solo]

[verse 4]
Only my life matters, not those other cases
And I'm keeping rebel names on those military bases
And statues just where good people had them all erected
We're going back in time to when America was great
With this stable genius, it's never too late
If my people come together and get me re-elected

[chorus]

[outro]
'cause I'm making us great again
Making me great again ...
Making me great ...

Mac Miller (19 January 1992 - 7 September 2018). Four months shy of the 27 Club.

"My regrets look just like texts I shouldn't send
I got neighbors, they're more like strangers, we could be friends
I just need a way out, of my head
I'll do anything for a way out, of my head."

A land-based re-telling of Moby Dick reverses perspectives. While Moby Dick was not a story about a white whale, Moby Don is indeed focused on a white elephant, a singular grifter intent on nothing less than being the center of everyone else's attention. The endless hunt of a disinterested whale is replaced by an endless hoax with the narcissistic Moby Don claiming that everyone else is on a "whale" hunt all while he is the one sailing the ship of state into chaos and throwing harpoons at anyone who he deems has tried to attack him.

The only way to rid ourselves of someone with the sole mission to remain at the center of everyone's attention is to bite the bullet and stop paying attention. Let the baby cry: sooner or later he will stop crying. We need to completely ignore Me/Now, as difficult as that will be, and focus all of our attention on the dozens of Republican sycophants, and do so 24/7, in a manner similar to what the Lincoln Club is doing, most recently regarding the law firm where Cleta Mitchell was employed when she was present at the call in which Me/Now asked Georgia's Secretary of State to "find votes." That firm, Foley & Lardner, represents both Major League Baseball and Venezuelan President Maduro. If we fail to hold all of these sycophants to account, then Maduro becomes MLB commissioner and only lawyers and agents will be able to play major league baseball, with Rudy G, Jenna Ellis, and Sidney Powell as the coverage team calling whatever it is they see in their twisted minds.

I just saw a South Park episode where one of them made a customer service call from virtual reality entering a loop that could only be broken by saying 'yes' when the Customer Rep asks "Have I answered your questions satisfactorily and offered good customer service?" So maybe if we all agree to just say that Me/Now won, he'll disappear forever?

Is public transit a form of socialism? Currently, public transit would seem to be a reasonable service to improve accessibility for those who have resource limitations that would otherwise constrain their ability to perform activities. Instituting policies, however, that would force individuals away from their chosen travel modes and suburban lawns and into dense urban housing dependent on public transit would reflect an objective of uniform behavior, effectively turning individual choice into group think. All such travelers would be equally indisposed.

Is traffic congestion a form of socialism? With capacity and policies that allow for congestion, all users face an equal barrier as a share of a common 24 hours of time per day. All such travelers are equally indisposed. Instituting policies, however, that allocate that scarce resource to those willing and able to pay more would reflect a market approach where some users would benefit unequally, but many would be unequally indisposed.

Recognizing that there are inequities in life does not imply that everything should be equal. It's all a matter of scale. It always has been and it always will be.

"How did it get so late so soon? It's night before it's afternoon.
December is here before it's June. My goodness how the time has flewn.
How did it get so late so soon?" Dr. Seuss

Setting and At Rise: A child playing with friends runs into a road. An oncoming driver was sufficiently attentive to safely avoid any conflict. With no parental oversight, a neighbor assumed responsibility to educate the child. A subsequent post to the community list serve generates discussion, some hypothetical, as to whether children, cars, tanks, or tigers should have preference over public space.

Act I. A tank (or a tiger) in any public right-of-way would be (at least) as unexpected as a car driving down a sidewalk or a pedestrian walking down the middle of a road. Regardless of which forces produced this allocation of right-of-way, most people agree that pedestrians should feel comfortable on a sidewalk and that drivers should feel comfortable on a roadway, and that neither should expect the other, or a tank, in their defined spaces. Right-of-way, however, is not absolute, and is often shared. It is also often unclear as to who sets and who can modify the right-of-way. There's a lobby, formal or otherwise, for virtually every aspect of life, including right-of-way, but the short run responsibility falls on the user of the defined environment, whether you are in favor (or even aware) of that environment's rules or not.

Conflicts occur where operating modes intersect, such as for pedestrians at a crosswalk or cars at a merging location. The rules for such interaction are learned from education (including parents) and experience, and in practice require that attention be paid. To be safe, pedestrians should not assume a car will stop as they enter a crosswalk and a driver should not expect a pedestrian to look first. But a driver would not expect a child to appear in the middle of a roadway, although this may be more expected in a residential area.

Act II. Right-of-way rules can be seen as part way between formal laws and old wives' tales. Jaywalking laws, which can be seen as racist in application and enforcement, exist despite traffic studies that suggest that pedestrians can be safer when crossing mid-block. This is due, however, to a greater attention to safety on the part of the jaywalker who knows they have no right-of-way and thus exercises greater care. Unfortunately, if people jaywalked in sizable numbers, a chaotic traffic pattern would likely result.

Bicyclists violate many traffic laws but appear more aware of other traffic modes than pedestrians. In a sense, many bikers operate as jaywalkers by violating right-of-way rules but not at the expense of other road users. In each of these cases, possessing a level of education and experience allows a degree of operating flexibility in a fairly regulated environment. But children, especially younger children, are not sufficiently skilled to exercise the judgement required to operate at these policy margins.

Act III. Sometimes a right-of-way can be shared, but it is almost always posted as such. Examples include sharrows (traffic lanes for motorized and non-motorized vehicles, but not for pedestrians) and also off-road bike ways which usually allow a mix of non-motorized modes including bikes and pedestrians, but not cars or other motorized vehicles. Hiking trails in parks, preserves, and wilderness areas may allow bikes but typically not motorized vehicles. There is logic present when these decisions are made, but not everyone will agree with the restrictions. Most people agree that pedestrians should never be allowed in freeway lanes and cars should never be allowed on hiking trails but there is a wide range of pathway types and pathways users so individual attention and common sense are always required. Aside: More can be found on shared-use problems by searching for "the tragedy of the commons."

Epilogue: We opened with a right-of-way case where a child likely erred, a driver was sufficiently attentive to avoid any conflict, and a neighbor assumed a responsibility for education regarding the child. Perfect? Probably not, but the "system" did not fail this time. And notifying the community does add to the collected education and experience, at least for parents and drivers who are paying attention. One day, perhaps we'll drive less, and eat healthier, and think more about our actions, especially when we're in interactive, complex environments. Until then, "let's be careful out there."

A dangerous mix of readily accessible media without public accountability has produced ignorance and confusion leading many people to no longer express interest or even trying to understand issues, whether they be in politics, science, or in this case population growth. In an LA Times Op-Ed (27 Dec 2020) Michael Hiltzik documents the changing demographics in the Golden State (with data that matches various studies as well as some prior posts). Mandatory reading but for which most people who need to read it, won't. So what is this kernel of population change that needs to be understood?

First, yes, there are some noticeable people and businesses moving elsewhere. There always have been, just like so much manufacturing moved overseas in my lifetime, driven by economic benefits. In fact, California has had a net outmigration to other states for over 30 years, with only the state birthrate responsible for population growth during that time. The numbers are very small: for the past two years, less than one half of one percent of the state's population is migrating to other states and in terms of natural growth our birthrate, although falling for during the same 30 year period, still results in a net population growth of 0.05 percent. But that's only one twentieth of one percent.

The good news is that California is not hemorrhaging people, as Ted Cruz has claimed. We have continued to grow. The (sort of) bad news is that, even with a large population base (about 39 million), we're not gaining much either. Job growth has also slowed. I've written ad nauseum that it is growth, not the impacts of growth, that needs to be controlled. So is this really a concern?

So why exactly are people constantly talking about the housing crisis, losing seats on Congress, and other population related concerns? Well there is a housing crisis, especially a lack of supply of affordable housing, especially near jobs and activity centers. This latter observation has always been the case but now it is claimed that overall supply is lagging (isn't population, too?). However, the "movin' out and drivin' back in" phenomena is currently producing, shall we say, an unhealthful way of life. I think that most people recognize the problems but disagree on how to address them.

In addition to some interesting history, Hiltzik gives some interesting statistics on the composition of California's population change. From 2011 to 2017, the State gained a net 162,000 residents with bachelor or graduate degrees (and a net loss in other educational categories) as well as a net gain in people earning over $110k (and a net loss in lower income categories). These changes suggest that California is still a bright spot for innovative business since, while some companies are leaving the state, many more new businesses are being created. But these statistics also show why officials are concerned about the supply of affordable housing. While this is a real problem, the potential solutions being proposed are not well thought out (see previous posts including several this year on July 13, June 22 and 25, April 26, Feb 2 and 7, and Jan 19).

Stop limiting your thinking to higher density, especially inserting such density in the middle of low density residential areas (think the socialism quip -- make everyone equally poor). The problem with Prop 13 is not maintaining home values (the biggest investment most people make in their lifetime), rather, it's in limiting the changeover in housing stocks. Sticking fourplexes in single family neighborhoods will decrease value for those who have already invested in those neighborhoods and will also increase values for the new housing itself -- hardly a long term recipe for solving the housing problem. Working from home may be the solution for many regarding problems associated with commuting, but this likely will be for higher paid white collar employment and not lower paid blue collar employment who are most impacted by the housing problem. And, really, the solution isn't unaffordable little houses.

In a review of Dylan songs, Tony Attwood writes: "It is curious that while with novelists we don't generally assume that they are always writing with a message (rather we expect them to be telling a tale for enjoyment) with song writers ... many people expect there always to be a deeper reference. A meaning that we have to tease out." Some lyrics do explicitly tell a story, and the meaning goes no further than the story itself. Country music is often described as "telling a story" (albeit a story most typically about male pastimes of drinking, driving, hunting, fishing, or being in a legal bind, which is often prison, marriage, or a low end job that restricts one from enjoying those male pastimes).

Songs need to achieve a double objective of musical and lyrical catchiness in a rather narrow time window, being more constrained than even a short story. Jon Anderson often wrote lyrics based on how the words sounded when sung, making his voice and lyrics another instrument in what was already complex music: "A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace" the first line of "Close to the Edge". Was the meaning revealed only in the sounds we hear?

On the extreme from the space that literature (and music) can provide, media arts such as painting must express everything as a snapshot. Is the meaning revealed only in the colors that we see?

In each case, what the artist might mean does not need to be what you see or hear, or what meaning we take from the experience. "Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own" (R. Hunter).

... to become a Democrat, writes Kurt Bardella in an Op-Ed in the LA Times (24 Dec 2020). Bardella, a Lincoln Project advisor, played his trump card by leaving the Republican Party in 2017. He argues that the party that was defined by balanced budgets, world leadership, and admirable character no longer exists. Changing one's political identity, Bardella continues, is "one of the hardest things you'll ever do." Read his Op-Ed (referring to my post "Upper Case or Lower Case C?" (25 Nov 2020), try substituting "religion" for "politics"). But the Op-Ed provides a cogent argument that, despite the difficulty of change, the party that Republicans have embraced no longer exists:

"If you were a Republican because you believed in fiscal restraint, under Trump the debt and deficit have exploded. If you were a Republican because you believed the GOP was stronger on national and homeland security, just look at what Trump said this week in cynically downplaying Russia's cyberattack against our country. If you are a Republican because you believe in law and order, examine the records of the corrupt people Trump just gave pardons and commutations to. If you are a Republican because you are pro-life, there are more than 324,000 Americans dead from COVID-19 to call into question the GOP's commitment to the sanctity of life."

*Note: My reasons are many but in large measure driven by my opposition to extreme politics on both the left and the right and a general sense that I'm a moderate but one whom with age is leaning a bit more to the right.

Michael Hiltzik's column in the LA Times (23 Dec 2020) addresses truth vis-a-vis the idiocy of the expression "agree to disagree." If you use this expression, then don't bother to read his column: you've already been convoluted, compromised, or conned -- your faith has blinded you to the dark side. Hiltzik writes that "lies and other false claims often have a firmer grip on the public because they tend to be less nuanced and therefore easier to reduce to a memorable sound bite than the truth." The truth indeed is often complex while a lie needs to be as simple as possible, otherwise, its fabrications will become readily apparent. Then why do people continue to believe? Start with Me/Now's first soundbite which (no surprise to many) became so revealing:

"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything ...
Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

After reading "Why We Drive' by Matthew Crawford, I arrived at a different perspective on models in transportation. Crawford's book is about driving and includes some very interesting perspectives on driving behavior. He considers work by Andy Clark on "an emerging paradigm of cognitive science [that] the human mind is fundamentally organized as a predictive machine." Crawford postulates an harmonic convergence of traffic flow in an uncontrolled intersections, where drivers become skilled at predicting what other drivers will do (he cites traffic in Rome). Much of this is determined by the role of social norms on our behavior. In a "good driving culture" good practices become norms, and these norms reduce uncertainty, making us more predictable. Crawford writes:

"The utility of the norm for guiding expectations derives from its dual nature, as both a description (what is normally done) and a prescriptive (for what one does)."

"Only if the norm carries some prescriptive force, capable of mustering praise and blame on its behalf, will it persist in practice, and thus serve as a description that capture actual behavior."

"A lack of shared enculturation leads to a relative poverty of sacred norms to guide behavior and, just as critically, expectations of behavior."

The LA Times [16 Dec 2020] front page headline "Traffic thinned, smog grew in L.A." is factually accurate but conceptually misleading, although the second page headline backs off on this a bit (L.A.'s air worse despite fewer cars on road"). But the article itself is quite good.

First, to state the obvious, after the pandemic hit working at home increased six-fold, and traffic disappeared so congestion was essentially eliminated. With unseasonal rains helping out, for three weeks the LA basin saw it's best air quality in years. So how did 2020 become one of the smoggiest years in decades? An intense heat wave, no precipitation, and the most extensive wildfires ever helped produced 157 bad ozone and 30 bad PM2.5 days. It was not cars.

The story's author Tony Barboza writes that "decades of regulations have cut passenger vehicle emissions so dramatically that they are no longer California's dominant source of smog-forming pollutions." The conclusion appears to be that even if you eliminate cars and with them a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) you still have to deal with smog-causing nitrous oxides (NO2) and the non-automotive volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It's not that motor vehicles do not play a critical role. Burning fossil fuels leads to climate change which is producing the excessive heat and drought that feed the wildfires. But replacing the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles soon will address this while allowing automotive mobility to be maintained. But "something there is that doesn't love" an automobile, a perhaps poetic means to express a significantly misleading mythology regarding the automobile, whether it be induced demand, traffic fatalities, smog, or even the love affair that Americans supposedly have with the automobile. The choice is simple and the car has and will continue to be the preferred choice, and technology will continue to address climate change and other externalities if we can only keep our eyes on the road.

In "Can COVID-19 Finally Kill the Highway Boondoggle?" Gideon Weissman and Matt Casale (11 Dec 2020) try to find a silver lining in a pandemic. And how I love that word. Well, I love the way that it's misused, since one man's ceiling (success story) is another man's floor (boondoggle). I also love articles which support policies with which I agree but which provide justification with which I do not agree. And which I do not believe are justified.

Among several excellent recommendations, Weissman and Casale call for a "fix it first" approach to repair existing roads, bridges and transit systems. Part of their rationale, however, is the old canard "highway expansion doesn't solve congestion." It's always context-specific. For example, fixing bottlenecks in areas that are not growing (in terms of population, employment, and income, and thus in terms of travel demand) can reduce congestion. If not, the authors should be careful about their "fix it first" policy because the call for quality improvements on existing roadways, if in growing areas, will increase traffic volumes (at least in the target corridor). In growing areas the best that can be expected is managing but not solving congestion. The key of course is to match growth, meaning population and employment, with appropriate infrastructure, meaning buildings and roads. Strict land use planning and control is the best way to avoid bad highway expansion.

Transportation Today (11 Dec 2020) reports on a study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute calling for urgent reform in how surface transportation infrastructure is funded. All parties involved are aware of limitations in the Highway Trust Fund in the face of diminishing revenue due to technology innovations, and many parties are placing their bets. While I have been most ticked with disingenuous parties who claim that the current system is "broken" while angling for their favored replacement, most do not address the real problem: more revenue is what is needed, not a new mechanism for raising it (at least not yet). This most recent call rises to the top of the Disingenuity Top 10. The CEI report urges a:

"return to a marketplace that values incremental infrastructure improvements, respects local governance, balances rural and urban access ... and enables personal wealth creation"

Update: An old post from the Chronicle of Higher Education (26 March 2019): apparently, P3-EDU (p3edu.com) is "a select group of university leaders and a handful of private company CEOs to network and share best practices around public-private partnerships in higher education." This certainly sounds like something written on the private sector side, but at least it's not P3COM.edu (although they probably thought about it).

I used to knock transportation economists for building elaborate models apparently with a sole focus on the econometric properties of the model and its component variables but not caring at all about the validity of any forecasts produced with the model. Perhaps this bias was associated with the old saw about the difference between economists and engineers that says 'engineers label their axes.' I'll add that economists conveniently create objects of demand, such as trips from origins to destinations, which are plotted against components of time, such as network link travel time, which is an apples and oranges sort of thing. And I knocked transportation planners for applying the same approach in research while they simultaneously knocked models as black boxes producing predetermined results, even though practical forecasting is a fundamental part of planning.

Now I am more inclined to see that forecasting is something that everyone does. Well, what most people do is rationalization to justify some preferred future by whatever means -- quantitative, qualitative, or intuitive -- supports their objective. This of course includes those professionals who do travel and activity forecasting for cities, regions, and states, a broadly defined cohort that includes individuals with many academic backgrounds but who are often confusingly lumped together as engineers or as planners. The ability to model or forecast is a required skill of neither engineers or planners. The preferred term is probably "modelers." Modelers, however, are often simply technicians, and those who need to interpret model results are often not up to the task.

"The accuracy of an expert's predictions actually has an inverse relationship to his or her self-confidence, renown, and, beyond a certain point, depth of knowledge." says Louis Menand in his New Yorker review of Philip Tetlock's book, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? In my experience, this is often true but there is a very significant caveat. A travel or activity forecast is made for, and paid for by, some institution that has already biased the forecasting process as part of the Transportation Planning Process. Although decision-makers prefer a single number, and ideally one that supports their preferred future, a real forecast should be not a number or other defined outcome, but rather it should be a range of outcomes with a probability of occurrence. A forecast should include an explanation of factors that influence the forecast and a likelihood that these factors may change.

What we have are a lot of hedgehogs who know one thing, who have one tool, and who are confident in their expertise to do so. What we need are more foxes who know or who can improvise a variety of strategies, and thus use a variety of tools, but perhaps at the cost of reduced confidence. In other word, more modelers with a knowledge of policy, more policy analysts with a knowledge of models, and more of both with an appreciation for uncertainty. This does, I admit, engender some level of rationalization, but if forecasts are both direct and certain, maybe that is not so bad.

Transportation Today (see SmartBrief 9 Dec 2020) reports a machine learning algorithm that analyzes ride hailing data to provide local congestion information. Use of probe vehicles was one of the first Intelligent Transportation Systems strategies proposed decades ago and now ride hailing vehicles are serving as the probes to predict traffic congestion ... quite appropriate since they are apparently a key contributor to the congestion in the first place.

Forty years since the December 8th murder of John Lennon outside the Dakota in NYC.

Every once in a while I am surprised to find someone who shares some of my fundamental opinions. It is often someone who on the surface, but often even deeper, is quite different from me. Scott Minerd, with a Wharton School and Wall Street pedigree, is chief investment officer for Guggenheim Partners. I would normally have stopped reading this LA Times Business article (3 Dec 2020) at this point but I saw that he was also both a bodybuilder and an evangelical Christian. I am neither and this too is where I would usually stop reading but the overall combination sounded intriguing. In a nutshell, Minerd's ideas align with mine in several areas:

• his negative but realistic view of fundamental changes that are occurring in the economy
• his take on Uber having drivers gain a short-term monetization of a vehicle asset for cash at a long term loss (not to mention his opposition to California's 2020 Prop 22 as exploitation overriding free enterprise)
• his view that Trump supporters are typically anti-tax, anti-abortion, or both
• his support of a carbon tax and a not so negative view of the New Green Deal, and affordable health care
• his alternative proposals on universal income and ideas of where educational institutions should be putting their money
• his realization that Trump's corporate tax cuts backfired and did not achieve what was promised

A headline in The Economist eNews: "Two races in Georgia will determine control of the Senate." Does this headline bother you? While it is not one state that will determine control of the Senate (it would be determined by the sum total of all states), can any deliberative body be "controlled" by any entity and still be representative of all voters?

"What If Automakers Had Acted on Their Own Climate Science From 50 Years Ago?" is the title of a GTM article by Stephen Lacey (20 Nov 2020) who writes:

"In the 1960s, scientists who worked for General Motors and Ford discovered that the exhaust from their cars was very likely changing the climate. They made presentations at conferences. They briefed senior executives. And then, they were publicly contradicted and their work was suppressed."

Catholic, the generic adjective, implies breadth in tastes and interest, and is not capitalized. I was raised, very loosely, Catholic, the capitalized version usually implying the Roman Catholic Church (the one with the Pope, for those not so inclined). I've often 'capitalized' on the bifurcation by responding to prying questions of personal beliefs with "I'm catholic" (with a lower case c). Obfuscation? Sure, since the likely intent of the question and the likely inference from my response was the narrow faith rather than the broad philosophy.

I always interpreted the old saw about politics and religion as similar to the linking of death and taxes: the latter being the two inevitables and the former being the two things not to be discussed with friends and family (yet another odd expression, especially for someone like me, who thought of these cohorts in the same implied light of politics and religion (never the twain shall meet). I of course was wrong, not necessarily about friends and family, but about politics and religion. And not wrong about where or when they can be discussed but in missing a fundamental flaw of the pairing. With just a little thought, one can see that politics and religion are not separate things at all. Each in practice is a shortcut that people adopt to navigate the broad philosophy of life. Each in practice is also a short cut for people who wish to indoctrinate others to their own philosophy of life (often under threat on eternal damnation).

Randall Balmer (LA Times Op-Ed 23 Nov 2020) questions why "Catholics are questioning Biden?" in this case over abortion. I won't summarize his excellent Op-Ed but I will point out his juxtaposition of Biden (but most other human beings would also fit) with Me/Now, one with a philosophy developed over a lifetime of experiencing and sharing human joy and suffering and the other with a singular objective of experiencing personal and immediate gratification, regardless of impacts on anyone else's joy and suffering. Biden's welcoming perspective is old school, increasingly rare in today's winner-take-all political climate for which Me/Now represents the extreme. Biden is catholic is religion and politics while Me/Now is areligious and in a sense apolitical: everything is about him, and only him. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the horse in question thinks that he's still in the race and in fact seems to believe that he is winning (the only November 8th headline that would have made me happier is "Trump Loses" rather than "Biden Wins"). This is all too slowly going away, but the impacts on daily life will be as deep as that of religion as a raison d'etre for many in politics. Neither a conservative nor a liberal approach is necessarily problematic as long as one considers each choice with an open mind and from a catholic (lower case c) perspective.

Thirty years ago today I went with some friends to the The Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles for a concert by Bruce Springsteen, Jackson Browne, and Bonnie Raitt for the benefit of the public interest law firm the Christic Institute. The acoustic performances were excellent from the 10th row, sitting in the midst of A Listers from the music and film industries. Today the event would have saturated social media. But what I remember most was Jackson Browne breaking a guitar string and, after a bit of strumming and thought, deciding that the song was necessarily over. Springsteen's performances were released in 2016 but I've never attempted to listen to them. Somehow, my memory was not about the music, or a night with friends, but in retrospect of a turning point. I too broke a string that night and could not continue with the song that I had been singing.

Legend has it that Robert Johnson made a Faustian bargain with the devil, exchanging his soul for a mastery of the delta blues at a crossroads in the Mississippi delta. Johnson soon joined the 27 Club after only a few dozen rough but stunning recordings but precious little is known about his life. Less than 100 years later, the legend breathes once again.

Many may be quick to name a person so driven by ambition as to surrender moral integrity to gain ephemeral power. One person of whom you may be thinking has gained but is now losing ephemeral power but that person never had moral integrity with which to bargain. Some of us have likely visited such a proverbial crossroads but I have in mind one for which millions of people have now passed. The bargain is a rationalization, an artifact of the increased complexity of life that drives each of us to simplify our decision processes. We rationalize but we are not rational.

The LA Times printed a batch of letters (14 Nov 2020) from "the other side" (Trump supporters). It's important to note that rationalizations exist on "both sides" and only time will tell from which was the Devil reaping souls.

Letter 1 is from a self-described evangelical minister in southern California who in 2016 saw "the character flaws of Trump and the harmful political views of Clinton" and voted for neither. Since then, he has been "stunned at the lack of common sense and civility, false accusations, name-calling, and twisting of words" that have come from politicians and media personalities. Most people agree regarding Trump's character flaws but he doesn't say which harmful political views of Clinton so I infer it's her being pro-choice. He also doesn't say which politicians and media but I infer predominantly GOP and Fox news. But he does nicely summarize this all as "bullying, shaming, intimidation, hostility, and vitriol." Again facing a difficult choice in 2020 between the "disturbing character of Trump" versus the "damaging policies of Biden" (I again infer it's Biden being pro-choice), the good minister voted for Trump because he "defends religious liberty and the lives of unborn children." Really?

If you are pro-life, and that is the absolute highest belief that you hold, then you should do what you can to forward that belief (although you should always be open to to the simple fact that not everyone shares your belief), and this would be reason enough to not support Biden. But do you honestly believe that "defending religious liberty and the lives of unborn children" is anything other than a Faustian bargain made by Trump for your vote? You might say that it doesn't matter, because pro-life is all that matters. But why would you believe that this pathological liar for whom everything is a quid pro quo will not trade you for the next crossroad bargain? Has God turned the heart of Mr Trump? Score: Rationalization 1, Integrity 0

Letter 2 is from a self-described African-American investor in southern California who reports that he has doubled his net worth under Trump's presidency and thus asks "shouldn't I reward him?" Ignoring the fact that the economic recovery claimed by Trump was set in place by Obama after the Great Recession under Bush and although it continued for the first few years under Trump it totally went bust due to his incompetent handling of the pandemic, what was the cost of that doubling of wealth? The national debt, which our children must pay in lieu of adding to their wealth, increased by $1 trillion under Trump, before any pandemic increases.

If you are only concerned about your personal wealth, then you should only consider the impact of policies that improve your wealth, but how can you avoid the threat to the economy's future due to being $23 trillion in debt (now $27 trillion due to the pandemic)? While you may have some confidence that Mr. Trump will not strike a different Faustian bargain that will threaten "your selling your soul to the Devil" since you are very much the same as Mr. Trump, are you really willing to risk your wealth and your future to a person who would just as soon sell you out as soon as a transaction more in his favor comes along? Score: Rationalization 2, Integrity 0

Letter 3 is concerned that everyone "blamed Trump and his administration for all the bad things in the world," like every other administration, whether it was true or not. But Trump does own all those bad things where he has taken action or has refused to take action, including the pandemic, whether "journalists with feigned objectivity blamed Trump" or not. Score: Rationalization 3, Integrity 0

Letter 4 is from someone who somehow thinks that those millions of Trump voters are being scorned by, well, the very people that the letter writer immediately scorns, including "elitists like" Michelle Obama and liberals from Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and most of Biden's party, not to mention Biden supporters "dancing with joy in front of storefronts that were boarded up in case his side lost". The writer echoes Trump who places all the blame for everything on anyone but himself. Score: Rationalization 4, Integrity 0

Letter 5 attacks Trump haters "so vile that they make us sympathize with the bombastic president." What about the haters of Putin, Xi, or Un? Do you now sympathize with them? Do you ask yourself what has Trump done to engender such hatred? Letter 1 summarized Trump's deeds as "bullying, shaming, intimidation, hostility, and vitriol." What's not to hate about that? Out to "get Trump" -- really? Well I'm glad you recovered from your coma from 2008-2016 when it was Get Obama, essentially the official platform of the GOP. And "topple traditional America?" If you mean the America where only white men own property and make the rules then, yes, this is the traditional American that has already been toppled and what Trump wished to reestablish. So you liked Walter Cronkite? Try Anderson Cooper. The "Russian Collusion fiasco? Only Trump thinks it was a fiasco. And you, apparently. Read the report. Score: Rationalization 5, Integrity 0

Letter 6 concludes that the choice is between an increasingly leftist democrat versus the increasing authoritarian right. Biden rejects the far left more than he rejects conservative values. He is farther from a socialist than he is from Trump (and if you offered the right deal, Trump would definitely go socialist with Putin, Xi, and other authoritarian pals). Score: Rationalization 6, Integrity 0

There were more letters but there is a theme. Whether it be personal morals or personal gain, Trump supporters simplify their choice by ignoring the even more simple fact that Trump cares about nothing but himself. He made a Faustian bargain and now he has offered the same to each of you. Over 70 million Americans have accepted this bargain: a vote and their soul for Trump, and a promise for the one thing you most desire. Those with buyers remorse must rationalize, but their choice was not rational.

Decision-makers often face urgent, even life threatening, situations and offer conflicting courses of action where a preferred path cannot be quickly identified. Action must still be taken, thus, a person incapable of efficiently and effectively compromising to resolve such a situation should not be in such a decision-making position. The primary reason that politics exists is because effective decision-making is fundamental in a pluralistic society. Any person who is ideologically extreme is incapable of compromise and by definition is unqualified to serve in a political role, whether it be in a legislative, judicial, or executive position.

I woke this morning to the sound of hail and then a second time to hard rain. When I finally arose it was to partial sunshine that soon became one of the brightest days in months. So I'm on the road again. This Route 66 has run from upstate New York to southern California, with many miles weaving through many states, shuffling through this mortal coil. So I gassed up on a chocolate old fashioned donut, took the dog for a walk, and thought "where do we go from here?"

The Candidate is a proposed reality show where a well-known star with political experience mentors a group of wanna-be politicians through the trials and tribulations of dealing with the media, public relations, social media, and party politics all while gathering support and raising funds to keep their campaigns going through the final vote. All we need is that well-known star with nothing else to do. Hmm ...

In his LA Times Op-Ed [3 Nov 2020], Jonah Goldberg ignores a critical aspect of autocracy. Republicans have conventionally embraced small government but in an attempt to minimize who has a say. The right tends toward autocracy. Democrats have conventionally embrace pluralism and larger government with power but with checks and balances. The left tends away from autocracy. The individual predilection toward total power is far more closely aligned with Republican principles than with Democratic principles. One need look no further than existing autocratic regimes: they may often claim to be socialistic but they are never democratic.

It may be fortunate that Me/Now, who possesses more than enough charisma, amorality, and narcissism to start the slide toward autocracy, is essentially too ignorant and incapable of managing an autocratic regime to allow this to occur today. Witness his serial inability to even maintain a business empire where he sat atop a true autocracy. I cannot explain those who support this aberration so blindly but I can see the many things he could have done to easily maintain his hold on power for (at least) another term. Fortunately, he is physically and mentally incapable of taking those actions.

"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last,
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L.Mencken

Norman Anderson, Chairman and CEO of CG/LA Infrastructure writes in Forbes (26 October 2020):

"Last week the State of Maryland was forced to take control of the largest P3 project in the U.S., the $5.6 billion Purple Line. The state now owns 233 design and construction contracts, must arrange for the long-term O&M of the 16.2 mile line (typically 7X the original capital cost, you do the numbers), along with 21 stations, and the $200 million contract for rolling stock. What by all appearances is a clear political and public policy disaster is a bullet dodged, and an opportunity to be seized."

An LA Times Op-Ed (23 Oct 2020) by Charlotte Allen claims that "The time is right for a Catholic court takeover." A subsequent letter in support (25 Oct 2020) says that "education in the church ... predisposes its members to very reasoned logical thinking." Is this any different from, say, an even longer history of Jewish theological thinking? Is a religious affiliation a prerequisite for reason and logic? Does a deep sense of faith even allow for a deep sense of reason and logic? Another letter writer disagrees that this Catholic court dominance is due to "the Catholic Church's theological traditions [that] breed lawyers" and says it's just Republicans appointing anti-abortion judges. In another LA Times Op-Ed (25 Oct 2020), Robin Abcarian jokes that "the pope has just come out in support of same-sex civil unions, putting him squarely to the left of our next Supreme Court justice." The Roman Catholic Church also fully supports evolution but clearly there are some things in this country that never change.

Although 2020 is not quite over, it has definitely been a "terrible, horrible, no good, very bad" year (some would say four years). We can look back with hindsight that is 20/20, but can only look forward with hope that is not. Hope springs eternal but we only have a few weeks to take action else our only option might be to move to Australia with Alexander.

Two weeks and 41 years ago, I had driven well past El Paso and was fighting sleep in the middle of the night when I came upon Lordsburg, New Mexico. Several hours later, I walked out of my second floor motel room and stared north in the early morning sun toward the distant Burro Mountains and across the frontage road and freight trains, one moving east over my shoulder and one west toward a distant beach on which I planned to be walking my dog the next morning. That view is forever burnt into my memory.

Then, 41 years later, I read an LA Times front page article by Kurtis Lee entitled "Small towns feel the pain," addressing how pandemic impacts trickle down. Noting a continuous flow of semis through a wind-swept town, Lee was, unsurprisingly, writing about Lordsburg, New Mexico. Turns out, as is often the case, there's a lot more than just cheap motels, gas stations, fast food, and boarded up businesses in these remote places: there are people, some on the road and some at least partially rooted. And always some history.

I had seen similar places across the southwest on cross-country journeys over the years, but Lordsburg had something, maybe just that early morning view, that resonated. A yin yang of the desert's permanence and the snapshots of lives passing through left me with an emptiness. I've carried some of that emptiness with me for 41 years and, as with Lordsburg, I doubt it will ever fade completely into the past.

Note: From nine years ago: Two Sides to Every Story"

I live in the 6th most populous county in the country, with the second highest population density in the State, in a City approaching 300,000 people and about 150,000 jobs, and on a campus with almost 40,000 students which has gone from one of the state's lowest to one of its highest proportions of students living on-campus. But I have been lucky enough to enjoy a rather bucolic yet increasingly diverse faculty residential community of over 4,000 people who have maintained a level of knowledge and common sense (some would say anal retentiveness) that even in this pandemic has been keeping us relatively safe.

Update: In the State of California, Orange County's population density of 3255 psm is second only to San Francisco, but my University Hills neighborhood checks in at about 9000 psm.

I often think that the chaotic circus at play in the White House, pitting a knowledgeable professional arguing "this is how it is" and our incompetent president contradicting with "no, it isn't," is right out of Monty Python. In last night's debate, American viewers came seeking an argument but received only abuse and insults. And from a 'stupid git' indeed.

Ten days ago the Sierra Club printed an Open Letter to the People of California (LA Times, 18 Sept 2020). Their call was not surprising to anyone paying attention and thinking beyond tomorrow -- our climate is changing and the time to do something about it is now. Also unsurprising was the Sierra Club absolutism that, despite active steps by California to address climate change, "half-measures are a form of climate change denial." While this rhetoric may energize members, it may alienate many others, especially those who may now be considering taking action. (Disclosure: The Sierra Club is one of a few environmental organization is which I have not participated.) The Sierra Club's open letter calls for five key state actions (details can be found in the letter):

1. End fossil fuel infrastructure
2. Increase the use of clean electricity
3. Phase out dirty fuels in our homes
4. Phase out polluting cars and trucks
5. Appoint strong climate leaders

In today's LA Times (29 Sept 2020), United Latinos Vote responded with "An Open Letter to the Sierra Club." As with the Sierra Club's open letter, this well written rejoinder also advocates for "sensible, fact-based, equitable energy policies." Their response, provided for each of the Sierra Club's actions (but not in the same order), illustrates that 'sensible' is subjective and that there can be detrimental and unanticipated impacts:

1. Phase out polluting cars and trucks. Impact: the working class cannot readily adopt EV options (but it is unclear their energy bill would be higher since EVs are more efficient on a per mile basis)
2. Phase out dirty fuels in our homes. Impact: lower income households tend to be renters and would face higher direct costs when houses are converted to alternative energy.
3. Increase the use of clean electricity: Impact: distributional impacts and new commercial and residential properties might be subsidized by higher energy costs paid by all.
4. End fossil fuel infrastructure. Impact: fossil fuels will be used for a long time so the question may be from where and at what cost do we get them, and what employment impacts will there be?
5. Appoint strong climate leaders. Impact: the wealth gap does not provide equity of representation.

If the general policies that guide progress through a system appear to be working then there is no reason to futz with those policies and systems. But engineers were probably the group in mind when the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" was coined. The subject system is that which graduate students negotiate as part of our Ph.D. programs in the Henry Samueli School of Engineering (HSSOE) at UC Irvine. The first key hurdle after gaining admission is to pass a Preliminary Exam, the goal of which is to ensure the presence of fundamental knowledge and skills that are required to complete original, independent, creative research. Formally, UC Irvine does not require a preliminary exam, but engineering has for many years.

As HSSOE has grown in terms of research, students, and faculty, there seems to be an increased concern by some that others are not doing it the same way that they are. This may be the academic equivalent of social comparison theory where one is concerned that other people (programs, schools, etc.) are 'doing it better' than they are. Is there a line between ensuring quality in our programs and fairness in our policies versus simply pedantry?

The specific language says "If the Preliminary Exam is not taken by the end of the 4th quarter, students will no longer be considered as making Satisfactory Progress" (my italics). In public high school, one of the worst thing that could happen to you was to have some action or inaction placed on your Permanent Record. In either case, I'm not at all sure what would be potential ramifications. Perhaps this is simply a passive aggressive approach to mold subjects to the expectations professed by the power system institutionalized. We do clone PhDs in our own image, so I suspect so. But maybe it's just an academic Facebook thing.

Alan Turing said "Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition." Neither can Trump understand thus neither can he respect.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan claims that a public-private "predevelopment agreement" will ensure that a toll road project will come at "no net cost" to the state. Apparently, "no net cost" means that the private sector will pay to widen two highways and rebuild the existing lanes in exchange for receiving most of the toll revenue over 50 years. Essentially, this is a give-away of public right-of-way to the private sector, locked in for multiple generations at a time of unprecedented technological and societal change. To some this may appear to be forward thinking but it's hard to see this as anything other than "an utter paucity of cogent insight."

Question: Which quote is from Judge Doom in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and which is from Tim Benson of the Heartland Institute [via Michael Hiltzik, LA Times 27 September 2020]?

"Real Americans, and all true Californians, love gasoline-powered vehicles. This is the state that gave us ... surfin' woodies, low-riding '64 Impalas, and the Bullitt chase; songs about little deuce coupes, Bucket Ts, ... old Pasadena biddies hauling ass in shiny red Super Stock Dodges. It is every Californian's God-given right to drive a loud, throaty, ballsy piece of gas-guzzling Detroit muscle."

"Eight lanes of shimmering cement running from here to Pasadena. Smooth, safe, fast. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past. I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night. Soon, [... there ...] will be a string of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food. Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful."

Michael Hiltzik writes in the LA Times (27 Sept 2020)

"Neither mandates nor bans build successful markets," groused John Bozella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, [who] stepped on his own applause line, however, as he also acknowledged that increasing consumer demand for zero-emission vehicles "will require increased infrastructure, incentives, fleet requirements, building codes and much more" -- in otherwords, mandates and bans.

As part of PhD qualifying exams, student transcripts are reviewed and I am always forced to conclude that my colleagues have an inordinate fondness for A+ grades. Grading is a scale, often numerical and usually split into intervals. Historically, numerical grades have been assigned on a 100 point scale with letter grades A through F isomorphically mapped. At some point, letter grade options have been expanded by adding a plus or a minus, corresponding to subsets of the isomorphism. For example, where 80-90 may have been a B, on the expanded scale 83-87 might be a B with the higher portion B+ and lower portion B-. I'll note that the +/- refinement was added at UCI about 25 years ago but there was then no A+ grade.

Why? For the same reason that there is no 11 on a 10 point scale and why no one can give 110 percent of their effort. An A+ grade makes as much sense as an F- grade (please, please, do not tell me that somewhere this too exists). In the rockumentary parody "This is Spinal Tap" guitarist Nigel Tufnel proudly discusses why the volume control on his amp goes "up to 11." The wit has been lost on those on the 13th floor of the Ivory Tower.

Some may argue that, if a B can have a plus and a minus, then why can't an A? Well, it can but this implies that A+ is the top end of the range (say, 97-100 on a percent scale) and it would no longer correspond to a special grade given to the "most exemplary students" who go "above and beyond" the top performance in a course, as my colleagues profess to believe. If this were the case, then one would expect a decrease in the number of A grades but the same number of lower grades (A-, B+, B, and so on). Alas, that is not the case. The A+ in most cases simply bumps the scale up a notch effectively inflating grades. What would have been a B+ performance is now an A- performance. This is the primary problem and another example of academic hubris, if that is not redundant.

Note: My first post on this blog ("Degrading" 4 June 2006) discussed the insanity of a grading process that was the state of the practice at the time. Also note that at UCI an A+ grade does not count more toward GPA than an A, unlike at many other institutions. And don't get me started on AP scores and high school GPA. At least we're finally getting somewhere on standardized tests.

On Anderson Cooper today, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman summarized the razor's edge on which our country is now positioned:

"When you have a president without shame, backed by a party without spine, amplified by a network without integrity, and by social networks that are marinated in conspiracy theories, behind whom are a lot of armed people -- if you are not frightened by this, you are not paying attention."

During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump claimed that he could shoot someone on Wall Street and his base wouldn't care. Now, thanks to his admitted complicity in over 200,000 dead Americans, we know this to be true.

An Editorial in the LA Times (14 Sept 2020) endorses Proposition 16 and makes the same arguments that were used to oppose Proposition 209 in 1996. A rough summary of these arguments is that the presence of systemic racism is such that something must be done. Now as then something indeed must be done, but as before I can't support addressing the wrong problem:

"You do not fix a leak in a pipe by placing a better bucket under the drip, or by devising a system to get the water back in the pipe after it's leaked out. First, you fix the pipe.

UC Irvine is an Hispanic-serving and first generation-serving institution. Our undergraduate programs in civil and environmental engineering have about 40 percent female enrollment, significantly higher than most STEM areas but much lower than the 53 percent of total female college enrollment. These numbers reflect success of UCI's holistic admission process and many other factors.

Should our numbers reflect the state's diversity? The question is really why should this be the case. Why are over 53 percent of undergraduate students (at most public institutions) female? Why are less than 20 percent of UCI students caucasian? Why should diversity of UC faculty reflect the diversity of the state (and what about the 20 percent of our students who are not from California)? First and foremost, faculty diversity changes slowly since the distribution of faculty changes slowly. Second, the pipe, once fixed, would insure a flow of diverse faculty candidates, but it is unlikely that the individual decisions that lead toward pursuing a doctorate and a research career will ever be strongly related to population distributions. Until then, the UC system will continue policies that are increasing diversity in the ranks while maintaining merit where it is needed.

An odd sequence of events led to my recalling a sitcom from several years back, the title which escaped me while trying to comprehend the convoluted scoring of a version of Spades with which I was not familiar. A web search found it's title -- Suburgatory -- a portmanteau of suburbia, that urban/rural trans state of millennial death, and purgatory, that heaven/hell trans state of Christian death. Apparently, many claim purgatory doesn't even exist ... some say the same about suburbia.

Through most of my life suburbia was the supposedly deserving foil of artistic urban cognoscenti, most recently being the foci of where some claimed you would never find a millennial. I've never once harbored a desire to live in a major metropolitan area, nor in a true rural area, so perhaps a level of suburban purgatory was inevitable for me. "Something there is that doesn't love a" suburb, a rather Frost-y view of places where, depending on your precise definition, most people in this country actually do live (I originally wrote "reside" but, no, "live" is the correct word). But now radicals on the right claim that evil forces are coming for your beautiful suburbs, and progressives on the left are attempting to turn them into the cities that suburbanites left behind years before.

But suburbia is very much like purgatory, clearly neither rural or urban, nor heaven or hell, but like most people, a biological portmanteau of anything or everything that being human means. So, think of Chesterton's Fence, and Louis Armstrong's maxim: "If you don't understand it, don't mess with it."

Emergent order in the environment can often be observed but not always understood. Individual life is incredibly complex; ecosystems even more so. When one is aware of a system, but does not understand how or even why is exists, then one should follow Louis Armstrong's maxim "if you don't understand it, don't mess with it."

Michael Munger asks whether "biological evolutionists become political creationists?" and claims that "the very people in Western society who are most likely to take the 'prudential preservation' position on natural structures such as species and ecosystems are exactly the same folks who are most willing to throw away the cultural traditions and moral systems from the past." Is there a difference?

Well, the Chesterton Fence argument that Munger utilizes states that one needs to find the value, in the broadest sense, of a thing one wishes to eliminate before one can choose to do so. The environmental case provides strong evidence that many seemingly unimportant elements of an ecosystem can indeed be critical. The human systems examples given by Munger are of an entirely different scale: the French Revolution and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, to which I'll add almost certainly numerous other significantly disruptive revolutions that are lost to history. I almost wrote 'evolutions' rather than 'revolutions' at the end of the last sentence, but revolutions are essentially instantaneous 'big bangs' where evolutions occur over time. Revolutions, as with most human affairs, can be undone and usually reflects a dominant force that subjugates the system masses. Evolutions more often cannot be undone and reflect the reactions of all system elements from which emerges a natural dominant force, the system itself. Natural laws will evolve over time, reflecting all system forces. Cultural systems, as Munger says, are also "highly complex and interdependent," but very few system actors have directly contributed to the governing laws.

Should we think hard before we attempt to change a cultural system? Of course, and any changes should be introduced with care and be allowed to evolve. But the longer the cultural status quo prevents evolution, the greater the odds that an uncontrolled revolution will occur.

Which of the following headlines is from The New York Times and which is from The Onion?

1. "Gender-Reveal Party Is Blamed in California Wildfire."
2. "Charmin Under Fire For New Ad Suggesting It Wouldn't Be Bad Idea If Everyone Started Hoarding Toilet Paper Again"

Long-term planning, in general, and travel forecasting in particular, follows a twenty or so year cycle, a rolling horizon that is updated every four or five years. This planning horizon is considered as part of the "Crutches, Black Boxes, and Poisons" series in recent and forthcoming posts. But there are related concerns ...

"This is the first age that's ever paid much attention to the future,
which is a little ironic since we may not have one." Arthur C. Clarke

"According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted.
Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet." Jay Leno

A California state court recently ruled that the UC System will not be able to consider standardized tests when it evaluates applicants. The decision was apparently driven by the lack of access of students with disabilities to the SAT and ACT exams during the pandemic but is consistent with a law suit reflecting other equity issues such as race and income [see Forbes]. How big of an impact might this have?

"It's certainly more illegal to bribe and swindle your child's way into USC or Yale by cheating on college-entrance exams or faking athletic prowess. But is it less moral to cheat brazenly like that than it is to donate millions to a target university, or to pay tens of thousands of dollars for preparatory private school each year, or to spend thousands of dollars on test-prep tutors, or to ferry your kids from soccer practice to orchestra lessons to bulk up their profiles as college-worthy?"
Ian Bogost [ The Atlantic (21 March 2019) ]

The biggest problem may be the simple fact that not everybody needs to go to college, and institutions need to address this. One size does not fit all. I support trade schools and also community colleges, especially those that lead to a direct transfer to a university. I do not support admitting students to college without a major. If you don't know what you want, then take time to find out before you a take the space of someone who does know. College is not an efficient way to find out about life, but life can be an effective way to find out about college. If you don't believe me, ask your parents. Or some college alumni. Or the people who will hire you when the job search starts (and when youth soccer, violin lessons, and SAT scores simply don't matter).

Rarely does a day pass when President Me/Now is not appointing an acting so-and-so whom the Senate never approves, leaving the country in the hands of often inappropriate appointments, unvetted by authorities, and easily dismissed later by Me/Now. A new process is in order. Presidents shall have a fixed amount of time (say, 1 month) to nominate a candidate for a position, and the Senate shall have the same amount of time to vet the candidate and complete the process. If the President does not nominate in the required time frame, then the Senate itself shall nominate but pass the vetting and approval process to the House, who shall have the same amount of time for a final decision. If the Senate does not nominate within the allotted timeframe, then the House shall have the same amount of time to vet and appoint a candidate of their choice in an acting capacity, which sends the process back to the Senate for final approval. If the proposed process adheres to the rules then it is no different from the current process. All that is removed is the ability to delay and not fulfill the obligation.

Some choice words last week on leadership and character:

• On CNN David Axelrod's comment summarized the litany of divisive words uttered by President Me/Now, the most recent being alleged comments insulting U.S. military veterans as 'losers' and 'suckers:' "It's too awful to defend, And it's too believable to deny."
  
• Army Captain Jason Kander, spoke eloquently on the long list of self-serving actions by President Me/Now which disparaged or endangered military members and veterans: see CNN
• Excerpt from "The Making of Stephen Miller" by Jean Guerrero (The Week 4 Sept 2020): "... the wall had been conceived by consultants Sam Nunberg and Roger Stone to get Trump to remember to talk about immigration. It was a mnemonic device, not a policy proposal."
• What's interesting is not that well-known Republicans voting for Biden speaks volumes, but that they're speaking volumes about why they are not voting for Trump.
• And I cannot ignore an appropriate line from Dr. Who: "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views."

"Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew travel forecasting could be so complicated." I think he said travel forecasting, but it might have been health care. If so, and in a cynically humorous parallel, it turns out that actual crutches, which won't cure a broken leg, are similar to the modeling tools used in travel forecasting which also won't cure the problems in your transportation system. At best, each can play a role in improving mobility options, assuming you have already completed the necessary preliminary steps. In the health care example, your broken leg would have been properly addressed by a medical doctor -- a professional who studied for four years of college, four years of medical school, and 3-7 years in residency before being allowed to practice medicine. Now where was I?

Oh yes, travel forecasting. To practice in this field you need no license or registration, no formal degree (neither undergraduate nor graduate), and no required continuing education. I do not mean to suggest that there are not superbly qualified professionals with advanced education and certifications engaged in the practice of travel forecasting. There are, but there seems to be many more perhaps less directly engaged, such as in transport planning, who are not as qualified but nevertheless often quite opinionated. One of the earliest proponents of travel forecasting wrote in one of the first books in the field, "It is almost as if people delight in having an area in which anybody can speculate because nobody knows anything about the subject." (Roger Creighton).

The problem is that many have come to refer to a travel forecasting model as "a black box." If one does not understand what a model system does, one should exercise great care in not falling under preconceptions, misjudgments, and unsubstantiated criticisms. Alas, such is not the case. Most who do not understand the "black box" tend to take an extreme position, either buying the model system and its results without question or discarding it as in "The Broken Algorithm that Poisoned American Transportation," the title of a recent article by Aaron Gordon on vice.com. Neither of these positions are valid. I will summarize my thoughts on this article over the next weeks in blog posts addressing crutches, black boxes, and poisons.

"Navigation systems are an example of technology introduced to automate a task for which people already seemed reasonable competent." Ironically, not for long. As the technology pervades, our competency will wane (S. M. Casner, E. L. Hutchins, and D. Norman, as quoted in Matthew Crawford (2020). "Why We Drive.")

"I am perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder." Lawrence Ferlinghetti

Rave on, Van Morrison. 75 and still looking for the veedon fleece.

I've long been troubled by the increasing consumption of college resources by amenities, including student recreation centers, elaborate dormitories, and the significant increases in administration and staff to plan and operate such programs and facilities. This also includes substantial athletic budgets for dozen of sports even at smaller colleges. Various categories of institutions are in mortal combat with their peers to, supposedly, attract students using the quality and quantity of these amenities rather than via the quality of academic programs. It's a viscious circle where institutions always seem to be one step behind in "keeping up with the Joneses." Now we are engaged in a great pandemic, testing whether this college, or any college so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. (Why does that sound familiar?) Students are no longer on campus making use of those programs and facilities and likely will not be for some time. It is quite possible that things will return to normal in 4 months (or one year, or ...) but there are at least some signs that there are alternative scenarios.

Disruptions from the pandemic are manifest but I was taken by a response that some students are taking. A New York Times article "College Is Everywhere Now" by Taylor Lorenz discussed a trend of college students, often but not always from the same college, renting a large house spatially distant from their institution. For example, a photo shows a group of ten Grinnell College (Iowa) students living together in Utah. If distant learning becomes the new normal, then the actual distance becomes immaterial. While extracurricular activities associated with a college campus are not available, regardless of location, a group of reasonable size following social distancing and other pandemic rules can create extracurricular activities in their new environs. Living near a ski area, a beach, or other outside draw let's anyone enjoy a Utah, Hawaii, or other locale while active in a college program in an institution located elsewhere. The student location could change every year but they would still be taking classes at a single institution (although, even that could evolve). Maybe we don't need most of our colleges evolving into amazon.edu or becoming one-stop Walmarts. Maybe there really are alternatives.

Update: Just one day after this post, Kevin Carey writes in the Washington Monthly [ 31 Aug 2020 ] about the problems of decades of growth (in enrollment and amenities) and the changes occurring due to the pandemic.

The scorpion, wishing to try the waters but being a very poor swimmer, asks to be carried on the experienced turtle's back. The turtle, aware of the scorpion's nature, at first refuses but soon succumbs to the promise that the scorpion would not sting the turtle in the back lest they both drown. They whole-heartedly begin the journey. Halfway across, and at no surprise to anyone else, the scorpion repeatedly stings the turtle.

There are several variations to this folktale, each inevitably ending with the scorpion drowning. Some have the turtle suffering a fatal blow and sinking to its death in the river while asking the scorpion what sense this made. The scorpion replied: "It's not a matter of sense, it's just my nature." Other versions have the turtle wise to the scorpion's ways and protecting itself with its carapace. One must wonder whether the turtle today has retained enough wisdom to not trust a scorpion and to be able to survive to face the donkey in future election cycles.

Yet another OpEd calling for mandatory voting seems to follow the same playbook we've seen for years. If you're a political minority (Republicans nation-wide), then you want to suppress voting since it currently will disproportionately reduce majority (Democratic) voting. If you're in the majority, you need to "get the vote out" and in the extreme this would be mandatory voting. The underlying problem, however, is education. When a prospective voter understands an issue and has a stake in it, then that voter will more likely participate and will also do so from an educated perspective. It only needs to be a single issue -- an issue which means something to the voter.

How do we get voters to buy in? First, we could take away their crutches. Both political parties and their long-tenured office holders have a real stake in the game: money and power. The simple solutions to this are to add term limits and remove endorsements from public employees (including other office holders, employees in government offices, and public unions). This needs to start at the local level but most critically must include the national level. Second, easy in theory but not in practice, we need to change K-12 education to include annual, age-appropriate education in civic responsibility. I'd like to see K-12 mock voting on one or two relevant issues every November. But will this address the current mind set?

You are unique, or minimally similar to a small group of people who consistently share your values. You may be raised with a particular cultural, religious, political, or other persuasion, but don't be fooled that those who share these values are necessarily similar to you. Friends and relatives usually avoid any discussion of certain issues and most individuals remain quiet rather than voice an opinion that's different since often the desire to belong overwhelms any desire to be different. There is peace and harmony that can come from shared values, but most values are not as shared as you think, despite the fact that they are often inculcated by the institutions within which you were raised (e.g., families, schools, churches, etc.). But try not to make that most common of errors of thinking that others, even within your close-knit circles, have the same values and opinions as you do.

There's a better way to deal with these differences than to keep them bottled up. It's a word that has become anathema in politics, itself an institution that has interbred so extensively that no viewpoints other than the partyline are acceptable. That word is compromise. One side wants bread, the other side wants water. If they stick to their guns, both sides exercise their preference and both sides will die. A compromise is some of both bread and water, and both sides survive. And compromise does not have to be on things that are similar, such as bread and water. One side can get maybe one of their two political demands, and the other gets one of theirs. No one gets exactly what they want but everyone gets something. Sometimes this compromise is on a single item. One side wants a conservative justice appointed while the other side wants a progressive justice. Both sides are so blinded by their "values" that they fail to see that, unlike Solomon's suggestion that a baby be cut in half, a moderate judge, as in a less biased judge, would give each side a little of what they want.

So, back to elections, here's what I propose. Election day is "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November." This date is closely followed in the calendar by Veterans Day, which is always November 11th, for reasons that most people don't know and/or don't care (for over 100 years, we have celebrate veterans on this day to commemorate the end of World War I -- on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918). Unlike Election Day, Veterans Day is a public holiday. What better way to honor Veterans than to have their day correspond to national elections, the very democratic institution that each of them fought to protect. It would be easiest to shift Veterans Day than to shift Election Day, but either is acceptable. Every four years, it would be worthwhile to promote the two month period from Labor Day to Veterans Day as a civic olympics of sorts where the country celebrates our democracy in a build-up to national elections on Veterans Day.

Here are some things to which I am adamantly opposed. Paying people to vote or, worse yet, making voting mandatory. Voting education should be mandatory. If you know the issues, or even just one issue of personal interest, then you are more likely to vote, and to vote intelligently. Some things that I strongly support, and some things that I strongly oppose. But ample room to compromise. What's the downside? Any group in the minority will have less of a say (this is why many Republicans don't want you to vote, since most voters, and most infrequent voters, tend to be Democratic). But without compromise, minority opinions will be ignored and left to languish on blog pages such as these.

If a child is born in a foreign country to parents who are US citizens, then this child can be a US citizen but depending on your definition of "natural born" may not be eligible to become US President. Does this restriction make sense today? Probably not.

If at the exact same time, a second child is born in that same foreign country to parents who are not US citizens, then that child is not a US citizen nor can they become US President. Does this restriction make sense today? Probably so.

If at the exact same time, a third child is borne in the US to parents who are not US citizens, then into which category is this child placed? This child by place of birth is a natural born US citizen with the full rights of a US citizen including the right to become US President. Does this make sense today? This apparently depends on your political slant.

This all made sense to our Founders and these rules are imbedded in the US Constitution (I'll ignore any potential issues involving the evolution of language since precedence has been long established). If this does not make sense to you, then you can also use the US Constitution to change these rules (see Article 5). It is not easy, nor should it be, but we've done it 27 times. It is well past time that we clarify the language, define natural born, address alternative birth options, and attempt to minimize the use of smoke and mirrors by those who wish to distract from the real issues.

A well-intended report included what turns out to be a misleading graphic that nevertheless was successful in making the intended point. That point, however, involving network connectivity and walkability, is not of interest herein. Rather, my interest involves bias and how it is propagated when, despite the ready availability of maps, data, and technology for verification, background checks are not commonly performed. Why would one choose to compare Venice, Los Angeles, and Irvine? Indeed. [ pdf ] [* Fermented Opinion 2]

As with any issue, please understand that President Me/Now does not give a hog's poopie about the essence of any issue: he only cares about immediate gratification and virtually none of it issue-based. What's he want? Right now, only to be re-elected. Why? He relishes a kingly status of power and obedience, and fears what will happen to him once he no longer has the (questionable) protections from his life-long corruption. Why does he care about suburbs? First, he doesn't (has he ever even been in a suburb?), but second, he does needs to regain votes of suburban women to win in November. Ditto with religion: is there anyone, religious or not, who thinks there is anything remotely approaching a spiritual side to this narcissist? is there any commandment that he has not broken?

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1460 requiring all California State University (CSU) undergraduates to take at least one course in ethnic studies, defined with comprehensive coverage of underrepresented groups. Good news and bad news.

Good News: Students need to be introduced to these issues
Bad News: These issues need to be part of their overall education, explicitly starting in and focused on K-12 education, to broaden perspectives already received from parents, friends, and media. As proposed, it is likely too late to influence awareness for those students who graduate from college.

Good News: This requirement will apply to the entire CSU system.
Bad News: State politicians should not be legislating academic requirements, especially when the CSU system had already accepted a mandate from the CSU Board of Trustees.

Ideally, CSU, as well as the University of California and California Community Colleges, should propose that ethnic studies education be present throughout K-12 education and that the State should provide the necessary resources to achieve this while the college systems could develop the material. Students who graduate from California public schools would enter with this requirement already met (others would need to enroll once matriculated). FYI: UCI has long required a General Education course in Multicultural Studies although the listed options appear to focus on specific cultures and not on the breadth covered by the new State law. [ link ]

Jonathan Shieber writes that Sidewalk Infrastructure Partners (an Alphabet spin-off) is "looking to build roads specifically for autonomous cars" starting in Michigan. There's a lot here. First, Autonomous vehicle (AV) promoters appear to recognize that AV deployment likely will not work in mixed flow on conventional roads, so they envision a full network of proprietary vehicles driving on proprietary roads (ka-ching). Second, just who will pay for the build, let alone the dedication of public right-of-way to private firms? I think that Michigan's Governor Whitmer far too quickly concludes that what will be good for the tech goose will be good for the Michigander.

In preparation for a departmental retreat, faculty advisors for our undergraduate degrees were asked to consider program development. An email exchange was only between two faculty but involved several iterations. To expand engagement, a didactic device was employed and the emails, after minor pedagogic edits, became a formal dialogue between Zeno, Achilles, and Tortoise. A copy was sent to faculty and, after a few odd replies and light laughs, a single thoughtful response sidled in from Crab, adding a fourth voice to the dialogue.

Two years later and self-reference in the dialogue aside, the issues discussed remain, as does the disinterest. While didactic devices apparently are not effective on engineering faculty, and while the race may need to change in our current online world, the central issues of theory versus practice, of how we choose what we teach, and how we can evolve our programs, need to be addressed. The dialogue includes references to real and related matters, paradox and self-reference, multiple interpretations, and a bit of philosophical history. Comments are welcome but, of course, one can just read it for entertainment [ pdf ] [* Fermented Opinion 1]

This morning I thought I saw a neighbor talking to her cat and it seemed that she thought the cat truly understood her. I went back home and shared this with my dog who laughed so hard he peed on the floor.

EdTech reports that University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering Professor Ella Atkins envisions a school using UAVs to clean learning spaces: a "drone can pop up above the tables and chairs and spray a fast-drying solution, just zipping back and forth in a regular pattern, there's no way a human could do that nearly as fast. That has real possibilities." A small drone "likely couldn't carry enough cleaning fluid to get the job done," but "running a lightweight hose from the drone back to a bucket of solution introduces challenges." Well, this is thinking outside the box ... you know, the reality box.

In today's LA Times, one [Kevin] offers an unnecessary and twisted logic of how he will vote despite admitting that "Trump is far from ideal" while also suggesting that Biden's only real problem is that [Kevin] thinks Biden will delegate all decisions to others due to his age (Trump is 3 years younger) and that this will allow progressives to "force a leftist agenda on him." Thus far, [Kevin] is correct only on his first assertion that Trump is far from ideal. He states that he doesn't judge Trump on what he says (how could anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and sanity do so) but on what he does. [Kevin] does appear to be selective on what Trump has actually done, or promised to do:

• Trump promised he was going to repeal and replace Obamacare and has been promising every two weeks that the new plan is just about ready, but nothing has been delivered yet.
• Trump promised that the coronavirus will go away but we're over 150,000 deaths with, despite his promises, no national strategy yet in place.
• Trump promised a wall and that Mexico would pay for it; in fairness, no one actually expected Mexico to pay for it but only 16 miles of new wall have been built (178 miles have been replaced).
• Trump promised he would do nothing but work, and after criticizing Obama of governing by Executive Order (EO), and of not governing by playing golf excessively, Trump's golfing rate is double Obama's and he has signed 45% more EOs in his first 4 years than in Obama's last four.

• Trump has appointed two conservative judges to the Supreme Court (if not for the duplicitous Mitch McConnell this would have been only 1).
• Trump is removing government regulations, at least those that allow corporations to avoid environmental protections, essentially providing cost savings to business at the expense of our children who will face a more polluted world. While [Kevin] claims this economic benefit as a Trump success he also is forced to admit it has been completely eliminated by Trump's lack of action on the pandemic, effectively suggesting that things would still be great if only 150,000 people and counting didn't go and die and muck things up.

So what does [Kevin] really see? [Kevin] as with Trump sees only what he wants to see, only those things that benefit him directly. And the last thing that [Kevin] or [Karen] want to deal with are issues such as race, gender, and class. So, for them, this is a no brainer: elect the one with no brain.

Update [9 Aug 2020]: With unwitting sardonic inanity, President Me/Now signed four more executive orders at, of all places, his golf course.

If a complex modeling system is carefully and properly developed, can it produce meaningful results? If so, what are the relative odds given resource constraints, not the least of which are the availability of expertise and data, that such a modeling system could ever be consistently and properly applied in the real world? If these odds are not good, given the resources required to develop and maintain a complex modeling system, would the odds be better if a less complex modeling system were applied, perhaps more frequently? These questions are at a level removed from the real questions that address the underlying systems modeled, and not the models themselves. More precisely, real questions should address the technologies that are increasingly defining the potential future of the systems that define how, when, and why humans interact. Or even if. As Max Frisch wrote:

"Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to experience it."

In the recent past, a human that commuted 30 minutes to work would control or manage a transport mode, in most cases some sort of vehicle in which they had invested personal resources, along a path that they had selected and then negotiated in real time, while observing the local environment, including other people and vehicles, physical infrastructure, and, yes, nature. Was it all wine and roses? Of course not. Life will always be a continual struggle, but it is the struggle that makes life worthwhile.

What do transformation planners foresee for, say, six years from today? Assuming that a commute to work is still a desired activity, perhaps a world where one would summon some mode of transport via smart phone (this too will pass when your phone by itself starts to make this choice for you). You are encapsulated in an artificial environment (perhaps designed to emulate a desired work space, or a favorite memory, or perhaps your own bed in your own home, if such concepts as 'bed' or 'home' or even 'own' still exist) and transported seamlessly (from your perspective) to your final destination (no pun intended ... yet). You will not notice the cost of such a service anymore than you notice the cost of your current travel, and the environmental impacts of such a service will likely be quite less than currently, as will be your awareness of the environment and the systems provided so that you do not need to engage at all. Eventually, you too will simply become extraneous to the system.

"Dawn showed faintly in the east. Among the ruins, one wall stood alone. Within the wall, a last voice said, over and over again and again, even as the sun rose to shine upon the heaped rubble and steam: "Today is August 5, 2026, today is August 5, 2026, today is ..." Ray Bradbury

Notes: Bradbury's story "There Will Come Soft Rains," written 70 years ago, referenced Sara Teasdale's 1918 poem of the same name. Bradbury lived in Los Angeles, never had a driver's license, and used public transit. The date repeated as the story fades would be the day before the 81st anniversary of Hiroshima.

Over the last year, my mental wanderings came across three things: a picture, a word, and a book. But first, some context. This blog had been re-titled "On the Corner of Cervantes and Coltrane" a year or two back after an off-hand comment in a meeting of the Transportation Committee of our local homeowner's board. While this is a physical intersection in my neighborhood, it was the intellectual intersection that resonated (and maybe the alliteration). Cervantes' Don Quixote tilted at windmills, Coltrane's soul breathed through woodwinds, and I de-stressed by blowing hot air at not-so imaginary foes in this blog. Soon after the rename, a re-design of the blog was in order so I searched for graphic depictions relevant to the blog namesakes and to a range of underlying common themes. I quickly found a perfect abstract sketch of Cervantes' Don Quixote and after a bit of a search I settled on a picture of Coltrane that fit the site's then color scheme. These still sit atop this page.

I came across a word, saudade, that I had never heard before. In Portuguese, saudade is a longing that remains for something that may never return. A synchronicity resonated, reflecting my love of the blues, and I made a brief post, brief but with layers of hidden meaning. Besides the blues, I'm a fan of progressive music, particularly from Britain and Poland. I found an interview by a couple of English musicians that were in other bands that I've always liked and I found that the singer, Rachel Cohen, had a PhD and also had a blog. In her first entry that I read, Cohen spoke of her return after several years to the recording studio as "coming home." A chord was once again struck so again I went to search on reactions to "coming home" and the simple fact that the warmth that Cohen felt was not something that I shared. What I found was quite surprising (see Wanderlust Part 1).

In her memoir The Desert Warrior, M.B.Dallocchio wrote "A wave of saudade swept over me as I realized home never existed at all." I had just seen a brief review of this book and this harmonic convergence of home and saudade could not be ignored. Before ordering the book, I searched the web for the author and found her page which also served to market her artwork and, cue the drum roll, she was the artist whose version of Picasso's 1955 Don Quixote graphic I had chosen just months before for this blog.

Instead of listing all the things in which I don't believe, I'll simply say that I do accept coincidence, even multi-layered coincidence. But this seemed too ... too much? My thoughts often wander but have been rather focused for several months. Perhaps I'm just in tune with selected inputs leading to desired connections. Three things. But I don't have any answers.

While complaining that recent urban protests appeared less controversial in the LA Times than recent worship services on the beach, a letter to the editor unnecessarily reminds us that "There is a 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion," the same amendment that also expresses the right of assembly. There are many ways to express these rights, and a responsibility to do so in manner that does not violate the rights of others. While religious freedom is not being challenged in our country, we do face clear and present dangers from systemic racism and from the pandemic.

I have no quarrel with those who choose to worship or with those who choose to protest but there are many options for worship that do not endanger those who choose to worship and those with whom they later interact. Unfortunately, no amount of worship, legislation, or civil disobedience has had any real impact on the racism that permeates our society, leaving strong and persistent protest as perhaps the only option to effect change.

When this pandemic is over, freedom of religion will be unfettered and places of worship, from beaches to personal sanctuaries, will be back to normal. But what about racism?

This proceded my series of "Defining..." posts seeking standardized definition of key terms in Transportation.
This post considers the difference between induced demand and induced traffic.

How are these terms different? I prefer that the term induced demand be used at only the highest level, the number of trips made, and that it not be used when referring to the dimensional characteristics of these trips. Unfortunately, it's probably not as simple as just defining VMT-increasing activity and focusing on capacity expansion. Consider the following dimensions defining traffic after capacity expansion:

1. New Activity. Is the region growing in terms of higher levels of economic activity, including population and employment? If so, there will be more traffic². Historically, this growth has been the primary reason why capacity is increased but the 'induced demand' is induced by the growth, not by the change in capacity.
2. New Trip Generation. Are people traveling more frequently? One causal factor is income, which is highly correlated with travel demand. But the frequency change would be induced by the income change, not the capacity expansion. Trip generation has always been shown to be quite stable over time and for a range of socio-economic characteristics. Changes in these characteristics can induce increases (or decreases) in overall demand, but these changes are captured in conventional travel forecasting models³. If either demographics and socio-economics have not changed, and there is no appreciable growth, then the only demand increase that could result from capacity expansion is a prior level of suppressed demand⁴. If people were traveling less than suggested by theory and empirical results, then it is probably due to high trip cost, a cost that would be relieved by a capacity expansion. For example, people living in poverty eat more when prices drop or food is subsidized. I do not believe that measurable increases in trip rates can occur under constant activity and socio-economic levels unless prior rates were already suppressed.
3. Spatial and Temporal Dimensions. Unlike the first two factors which can be deemed induced demand, these dimensions describe observed traffic and should be called traffic, induced or otherwise. These include destination, mode, time-of-day, and path. Each of these dimensions are explicitly part of standard travel forecasting methods³. When a capacity expansion is made, flows will tend toward a new equilibrium pattern. This will incorporate shifts in destination, mode, time-of-day, and path, but these shifts will not change the total number of trips (demand), just the observed traffic. This is what most people mean when they say that a capacity expansion has induced traffic. But any shift is not only a shift to but also a shift from a prior dimension. The results can be increased VMT due to new destinations or mode shifts to private vehicles, but much less likely due to changes in time-of-day or path choice⁵.

Second, capacity increases can readily induce changes in traffic patterns, This is why we adjust signal timing, improve traffic management, add public transit, and reduce bottlenecks. Traffic increases precisely where the improvement was completed (whether new lanes, new signal timing, etc.) and it does so by shifting traffic from prior destinations, modes, times, and paths. It would be improper to simply claim that the new traffic on an improved roadway was demand induced by the expansion when it is most likely traffic altered by rational behavior. Models that reflect appropriately scaled networks can explicitly evaluate induced traffic via sub-models for destination, mode, time, and path choice⁶. The total number of trips in the network will remain the same (note that spatial zoning can have distributional influence as destination choice models shift trips from between to within zones, or vice versa, resulting in an apparent change in total trips on the network).

Third, very few current model systems can explicitly account for induced demand unless they have integrated land use models and trip generation models that are sensitive to system performance⁷. To properly assess induced demand, one would first need to assess how much induced traffic is present since these trips reflect trips that were already being made prior to the capacity expansion. Any additional trips that are measured would be due to induced demand, which in a growing area would most likely be due to actual growth (and not current residents joyriding on newly uncongested roadways).

Fourth, there's at least one important factor that's often ignored. Even under the 'worst case' scenario that most or all of the increased capacity is consumed by induced demand (it can only get worse if there is growth or increased affluence), two things have to be recognized. First, more people are traveling and, all other things constant, this is a good thing (with the exception of our current pandemic). Second, unless the worst case scenario occurs (and we're back to where we started in terms of congestion), traffic will be flowing better than before, meaning relatively lower GHG and emissions rates. The actual total GHG and emission can be higher or lower depending on the associated total travel, suitably factored by the lower emission rates.

Induced demand is now more of a rallying cry than the prior demon 'sprawl.' Consider the following quote: "In Walkable City, Jeff Speck says that induced demand is the thing that everyone in city planning understands but doesn't talk about." I think that it is more accurate to categorize induced demand as the thing that everyone in city planning talks about but doesn't understand. So which is it? The overly simplistic definition that has an anti-auto bias is that induced demand is the increased demand that appears when highway capacity is increased. I hope my above comments have provided some depth and breadth to this issue. Note: A pdf of this post with technical footnotes is available.

"General relativity describes how massive objects like planets and black holes warp both space and time, like a bowling ball on a trampoline. The warping of space and time, or as physicists call it, spacetime, is what causes gravity." So writes Shaena Montanari, with undoubtedly a little help from her friendly neighborhood physicists, in reviewing Palm Springs.

Newton's Law of Gravity at one point was postulated as a potential model for the distribution of trips or other spatial flows. It should not be surprising that it never really worked, but Wilson's 1969 entropy maximization effectively applied information theory to the derivation of a family of spatial interactions models, including those models that are, despite but a weak semblance in general structure, still deemed "gravity models" and which are still regularly used in travel forecasting. Oddly, massive populations, be it employment centers, residential areas, or similar massings of human activity, do warp the "spacetime" of transportation networks. Whenever humans are involved, nothing is ever as simple as elementary physics. Time travel might in theory be possible, but in transportation you can't leave later and get there sooner.

"The arts are twice removed from reality," wrote Plato, who believed that the ideal was a natural concept and the construction of the real world was based on an objectification of that ideal (thus, once removed). Any artistic interpretation of the real world was then twice removed from the ideal. An example would be the natural concept of a chair, objectified by a craftsperson as a real chair. Philosophically, Plato believed that poetry in particular was a barrier to reality and the search for truth. Consider a poet's interpretation of an artist's painting of a chair as "thrice removed from reality."

Is this relevant to models? The ideal is objectified as real world systems, comprising infrastructure and all related elements, which are "once removed from the ideal." The real world system is represented in turn by levels of abstraction dictated by institutions, resources, and the level of understanding, so the real world system modeled is "twice removed from the ideal." It can be argued that those who make decisions interpret the results of model abstractions, and are effectively "thrice removed from reality." So, public decision making has Platonic similarity with poetry. Perhaps one can see that I bolted after only one lecture in Philosophy 101, I'm not a big fan of poetry (despite having snippets of Frost, Sandberg, and others permanently seared in my mind), and I have a tenuous but dynamic relationship with systems modeling.

This proceded my series of "Defining..." posts seeking standardized definition of key terms in Transportation.
This post considers the difference between model development and model application.

• Model Development has three inputs: a known Transport System (e.g., network), a known Activity System (e.g., TAZs), and observed travel data (e.g., network volumes and speeds). Model Development has one primary output: a calibrated model.
• Model Application has three inputs: a future Transport System (e.g., future network), a future Activity System (e.g., TAZs), and the calibrated model. Model Application has one primary output: a forecast (future network volumes and speeds).

There are futher complications. In travel forecasting, each model component is separately calibrated (usually via different methods), but validation is typically done for the model system as a whole, while individual components rely on reasonableness checks since, as with evolution, intermediate results can be hard to find). Model systems are usually calibrated every 10 or so years but are validated every 3-4 years. If there are validation issues, model components need to be re-calibrated prior to application. This ad hoc calibration often involves adjusting some parameters as part of the validation process, such as adding K-factors in Trip Distribution or updating a link performance function in Trip Assignment, while full model system calibration would include all component sub-models (this is always a major undertaking and is done at great expense)

One way to address this is to associate Model Development with both calibration and validation (despite the methodological similarity of validation with Model Application). The term estimation would be used in place of calibration. Estimation is formal and more strongly linked with theory, while calibration is ad hoc with a focus on goodness of fit. The term calibration would be linked with validation. The output of Model Development would become the validated model. Looks like a lot of editing of my lecture slides is in order.

"I'm gonna move way out to the outskirts of town ..." (C.B.Weldon)

I somehow missed the OpEd by Joel Kotkin and Marshall Toplansky (LA Times 12 July 2020) but saw the unsurprising response letters to the editor. The OpEd dismissed suggestions that dense residential development should be encouraged along the coast and instead said inexpensive land further inland made much more sense. I do not challenge the statistics and trends presented in the OpEd but I'd like to emphasize a few points and also to add some others:

• Despite all the hoopla, California is no longer growing rapidly: 0.5% per year with net out-migration
• Two of three Bay Area tech workers "would leave the area if they could" suggests that a reason they may not be mobile could be employment limitations elsewhere (and can't they more easily than most work remotely to at least provide some increase in location choices and reduced commuting costs?)
• Governor Newsom's wish for 3.5 million new homes by 2025 is like Trump's for 100s of miles of border wall: not cheap, not clearly needed, and not being built.
• Affordable residential areas rarely have close-by jobs. The only apparent, potential work-around would be to simultaneously develop housing and employment in less expensive areas and to NOT simultaneously subsidize transportation infrastructure so as not to induce longer commutes.
• According to Wendell Cox, the number of telecommuters had already passed the number of pre-pandemic transit commuters
• Urbanized California was only 5.3% of the state in 2010 (and, no, the rest is not all valuable farm land)

"... 'cause I don't need nobody else always hanging round." (C.B.Weldon)

I'd like to recommend an LA Times article (14 July 2020) by art critic Christopher Knight "SoCal racist plaque gets the boot" which relates to topical discussions of the day but expands the scope to the naming of roads and the placement of roadway monuments. Despite decades of interest in history and transportation, I have never heard this particular story about a Jefferson Davis National Highway. But don't miss the forest for the trees.

It's not surprising that our President is defending great "historic monuments and statues" since such public displays distort the actual history and represent the only "winning" for which people on the wrong side of history could ever hope. People like our President.

The Civil War was fought over slavery: although its defenders claim the issue was state's rights, the only state right in play was the right to own slaves. Those in power launched a war to protect the southern economy for the benefit of those in power. Our current civil war is being fought over a similar refusal to reject white supremacy by a leader who has only one rationale: to stay in power by maintaining the same economic and social forces that protect that power by whatever means possible.

These statues and monuments were not erected by those who lost the war but by those still fuming, decades later, over the end of slavery and attempts to elevate black Americans to full citizens. These monuments and statues were meant as nothing more than reminders that white supremacy would always be there, symbolically towering over everyday life.

While I don't blame the confederate soldiers who fought for this dishonorable cause, many who knew no other way of life, I do blame today's foot soldiers, the GOP sycophants and evangelical base who have already placed Trump on a pedestal, erecting monuments to lies, hatred, racism, and divisiveness. Despite our very name, the United States, and our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, being monuments to the power of unity, those currently in power have stooped so low to hold on to power in the most un-American way.

An editorial by Chris Hendrikson and Laurence Rilett in ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering: Systems asks fundamental questions regarding "The COVID-19 Pandemic and Transportation Engineering" and the uncertain long-term travel impacts, including:

• Will stay-at-home telecommunications become more common relative to personal travel?
• Will crowding in public transportation and shared ride modes become permanently less appealing because of the fear of infections?
• Will the development of connected and automated vehicles be accelerated?
• Will e-commerce use climb substantially?

On my department's home page is an image-based menu to our four research focus areas, Environment & Energy, Structures, Water, and Transportation. The images are, briefly, a meadow with sun, blue sky, and a wind turbine tower; the concrete superstructure for a bridge; a water treatment facility; and a horribly congested urban freeway interchange. If my underlying concern is not fully evident from these descriptions, allow me to convey a related story.

At a retirement event some years ago, a faculty member in environmental analysis realized that three of the five people in the conversation were in transportation. She capitalized on the opportunity and asked "Why does stopped freeway traffic suddenly start moving when there are no signs of an incident or other interruption to flow?" Yes, a good question, but the point is, with the possible exception of finding one's self in the presence of three medical faculty, transportation is one of few fields where everyone is familiar with both good and bad experiences. I suppressed the desire to query in response about the occasional slow flushing toilet. So, why are images of transportation so often reflecting systems that aren't working? Should the department have displayed a toxic waste dump, a collapsed bridge, or a broken sewer system for the other three areas? Of course the other extreme can be as bad, such as displaying the same freeway interchange with no traffic at all, suggesting that the system was perhaps over-designed.

I decided to create a punked home page, looking for images that reflected my alternative examples of failed systems. It was easy to find failed images in the other three areas, but not so easy to find images of success in transportation where most images conveyed the normal state of play as being less than optimal. We all hear about structurally deficient bridges, but we rarely see them. We all heard about the failed water system in Flint, but again we rarely see relatable images. In transportation, however, we live with congestion, with pot holes, dangerous driver behavior, and poor traffic control. It's right there for all to see. So maybe the home page images were appropriate. Most but not all of my colleagues got a laugh over the revised version.

I've commented on housing, land use, public space, and the role of government, but not directly on property rights. I consider individual rights as paramount, but no rights are absolute. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, your right to swing your fist ends somewhere in the general vicinity of someone else's face, and you can't drive your fully armed and loaded M1 tank, well, anywhere. With every right comes responsibility. While a piece of paper can specify rights, it takes the general public to enforce responsibility.

I've written several times on the attempted incursion of state government into local land use planning. My focus has always been not government intervention per se, but the level of government involved. I don't like the overreach of neighborhood associations, and I definitely do not like impending overreach of the state on local plans and policies. I'm particularly disturbed by recent discussions of vacancy taxes on housing and land that is not being actively utilized, a true violation of property rights.

A letter in today's LA Times (25 June 2020) however voiced an oft heard mantra on property rights. I'll skip philosophical arguments regarding establishing the provenance of property ownership, other than mentioning that in California it all started about 200 years ago when the Spanish crown gave away what they stole from native Americans. Instead, I'll focus on the limitations of property rights. Like freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and other rights, one's rights on real property are constrained by similar rights on neighboring real property. This is where government plays a role, a role delegated to local government for the common good. If an area is designated for single family homes, with various land use restrictions, those restrictions form a condition on ownership. So you can't build a 20 story building on a lot in the middle of a single family home development because your property rights would then impinge on the agreed property rights of your neighbors. With any conflict between rights and responsibilities, it is rare that either is absolute, despite the fact that the former is granted and the latter is expected. On the other hand, the Golden Rule almost always applies.

Three years ago in a post entitled Heroes and Traitors I discussed my long-held oppositions to honors and awards as well as the over-promotion of people, places, and products since "very little in life is black and white." This public recognition is certainly not driven by the people who are being recognized, most of whom are dead, but rather by politics, a calling that requires a religious fervor and a field that is lacking in iconic figureheads. So we fabricate icons in the form of monuments, names on public infrastructure, government programs --- anything that can be named, to promote the "cause" (and I suspect to increase the odds that the name promoters will one day find themselves iconized). I offer some reasonable rules-of-thumb as to how to proceed:

1. Immediately remove all statues of any individual whose primary association is with an unethical cause (yes, this means first and foremost, the confederacy). Remove them for subsequent placement in a museum or expect others to tear them down and destroy them.
2. Immediately rename the ten military bases named after confederate generals. Rename them after the place name in which they are located (such as the U.S. Navy already does).
3. Ban politicians from naming any public infrastructure, program, or lands after any individual.

Update 2 (25 March 2026):

"This is not the end of cities," writes Richard Florida in Bloomberg Citilab. Of course not, virtually all would say, but some of us might at least consider that it could be the beginning of the end of cities, at least as we currently know them. Florida expands his answer to the implied question in his title: "It would be one thing if the death of cities thesis was limited to the familiar chorus of anti-urbanists and city bashers." Really? Anti-urbanists and city bashers? I wasn't aware that anyone was promoting suburban or rural lifestyles let alone bashing cities. Bashing soulless suburbs? Yes. Anti-car? Of course. But anti-urbanists? No. At least not yet. I'm not even sure just who would have considered that this might be the end of cities, but now that that flag's been hoisted I can understand that some urbanists may feel threatened that their pyramid city might be exposed as a house of cards. Consider Florida's first reflections on pandemic arguments against density and pandemic responses such as teleworking.

Density reflects a spectrum: there is no ideal density but binary minds see high density housing, public transit, and 24/7 life styles as good and everything else as, at best, a work in progress. Binary minds can't even imagine that the process of evolving to a utopian state of urbanity from some primordial ooze may require some intermediate "sprawl." Cities will still be not only present but primary, but historical considerations aside, there has never been such disruptive innovations such as modern communications and technology that actually threaten cities as the locus of human activity. It's not our current cultural and health problems, as severe as they are, that threaten cities; rather, it's the sudden awareness of the presence of viable alternatives. Cities provided for the physical presence of human interaction, the traditional engine of innovation, but that physical presence is no longer needed -- still desired by many -- but no longer needed. I for one do not want to see cities decline, if only for the selfish reason that massing humanity in cities means that humanity is not massing in other places where I would rather be.

There are problems with cities, not the least being the very physical infrastructure that reflects the city pattern also restricts the pattern from evolving. Venice is Venice as it always has been, and as it always will be (unless it becomes Atlantis II). I'm not so sure that Florida's certainty of permanence is fully justified. For every major city that Florida lists there's one that no longer exists, in the deserts of the middle east, the jungles of central America, and just about everywhere else on the globe. When facing disruptive forces, or disruptive innovations, sometimes the best strategy is to just leave. I'm not saying that this will happen. I'm only saying that urbanists could be caught in a Trumpian claim that these problems "within a couple of days [are] going to be down to close to zero."

Florida also discussed extreme cases of cities being decimated but then rebuilt. Removing the permanence of infrastructure certainly opens the possibility of a phoenix-like rebirth, such as seen after wars. Florida considers the concentration of innovation-related industries and jobs and claims that "ultimately, today's crises will likely do little to alter the decades-long locational preference or "spikiness" of these key industries for leading superstar cities." But decades are but a blip in time and, in this case, the only blip within which these industry even existed. Like Hollywood in the early days, the locational preferences can and will change with technology. Florida writes that economist Paul Romer dismissed the notion that the virus would hinder the growth trajectory of cities: "The underlying economic reality is that there is tremendous economic value in interacting with people and sharing ideas. There's still a lot to be gained from interaction in close physical proximity," concluding "for the rest of my life, cities are going to continue to be where the action is." I agree (for the rest of my life, too).

If there is one factor, however, that can override physical proximity it's technology proximity. I never thought that a pandemic could be the end of density and thus cities. I personally am more concerned with the impacts of climate change on cities because, unlike pandemics, climate change has a long history of ending cities. And climate change is well under way.

I walk my dog twice each day, 30 minutes in the early morning and 30 minutes in the early evening, the coolest times of day without coyotes. With an aging dog, I've stood increasingly "in uffish thought" when he finds a particularly new scent in a particularly inaccessible shrubbery and sometimes consumes a choice morsel of who knows what that we both pay for over the next 24 hours. Like a child, a dog has to be watched 24/7 and I'm finding this increasingly true about everything and everyone. What some may think of as minor transgressions or even civil disobedience, I find to be simple sloth. It might come down to simple rewards, or a lack of simple punishment, but in any case someone else picks up your mess. My dog gets a treat in any case. What's your excuse?

You learn something every day, this time from Huell Houser's "California Gold." The ceremony to mark the connection of the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroad tracks near Promontory Utah was originally to be held 8 May 1869 (apparently engraved on the spikes) but it was postponed for two days because of a labor dispute and bad weather that delayed the arrival of the Union Pacific representatives to the party. You can't make this stuff up: labor chaining a rail car at a siding until they got paid, followed by a storm-weakened bridge that the locomotive engineer refused to cross (although he did push the cars across the bridge and another locomotive was found on the party-side of the bridge). It's too bad that California's high speed rail project started in the middle of the state (some would say it's too bad it didn't start in Utah). Public financing was provided, private fortunes were made, and there was much else that could easily apply to large scale projects today. Worth a few hours of your consideration. Note: You may wonder why these events which occurred in Utah have a direct connections to, as Huell puts it, California's Gold. Two of the original last four spikes driven to connect this continental connection are now displayed at Stanford University, including the "Golden Spike" driven by CPRR's Leland Stanford.

At the end of each spring academic quarter, when I'm nearing completion of my undergraduate elective course in transportation modeling, I face the same questions and the same underlying concerns. For many faculty, this annual frustration usually has the same reaction: take a deep breath and move on. I usually, however, take advantage of the questions and a small amount of time to ponder a long term response. The fundamental question is: What are we expecting our students to know, what knowledge and skills have we instilled? The answer that is apparent, at least in the views expressed by students (and many of my colleagues), is that we are expecting "the right answer."

There's a fundamental outcome of engineering accreditation: the ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems. And there's a fundamental characteristic of most engineering students: they react to positive reinforcement, and that means that want a good grade. This is quite odd, looking forward, but quite obvious looking back. To high school students, grades are critical for college admissions (understanding not so much). But once a students is part of a civil engineering program, grades mean something else: grades begin to reflect understanding and not a ranking that will be used to qualify for the next step (college GPA is rarely an issue when applying to civil engineering firms, most of which are small and/or local offices where students are interviewed by the people with whom they will be working, although grades are still very important for that 10-20 percent of our graduates who may consider graduate school).

Are students aware of this? Yes, at least most are in our program since I hold mandatory annual group advising sessions each year. I emphasize the transition from being able to solve a problem that is defined for you (skills introduced in high school, reinforced in the lower division, and emphasized in the upper division) to being able to formulate a problem and, eventually, being able to identify what if any problem there is. But somehow, students are still focused on getting the right answer -- solving the problem -- which of course is important, but not as important as beng able to identify and formulate engineering problems. Many still cannot extract this latter information from text, while most can readily solve once the equations are identified. This lack of skill is accentuated in senior design, a year-long sequence for all civil and environmental engineering students that I taught for twelve years. Many if not most of our students are stymied by the open nature of design: often ill-defined problems with many alternatives that can satisfy the design objectives and constraints. I can only think of one reason why so many students have this common difficulty: We do not provide them with the experience of addressing design problems. It should not be surprising that many of my seniors had no idea as to how to even start.

A similar problem was evident in my transportation modeling course. They've had probability and statistics but they never were forced to apply them to engineering problems. The only equations that they've seen are basic relationships of structural and fluid mechanics and similar areas. It's particularly embarrassing to see that they lack the ability to express their design beyond a numerical answer, let alone understand whether the original question was even addressed. Why is this so? I can only surmise that we are not only not making them think but we're reinforcing their comfort in solving familiar problems over and over again. A famous author once wrote: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Yes, 42 is the answer, but what is the question?

"I am delighted to" is how academicians announce new hires, appointees, publications, events, and pretty much everything else of a positive note, which suggests that perhaps such delight lays in the simple fact that there's nothing bad to report. This phrase is also used for recommendation letters and in such cases I'm not exactly sure how much delight there really could be. If it's just rhetoric, why not occasionally use a synonym? I looked, making the mistake of searching for 'delight', which produced "bliss, rapture, ecstasy, elation, euphoria," none of which seemed to be appropriate for the expected sentiment. Then I searched under 'delighted' and found "very pleased, glad, happy," which sounded better, but then the list continued with "joyful, thrilled, overjoyed, ecstatic, euphoric, elated, blissful, enraptured," and then finally listed metaphors referring to cloud nine, seventh heaven, and other atmospheric revelations.

Perhaps it's no different than grade inflation. My colleagues can now assign A+ grades, supposedly to reward the very best students, but that means that those B students are now getting A grades. If one is always writing recommendations that begin with "I am delighted to" what does one do when that rare 'once in a lifetime' student comes along, other than venture into super-atmospheric references to the rapture? And what would the recipient think if you did not say "I am delighted to" but never the less wrote the best damn letter that you've ever written about the best damn student that you ever had? I'd be delighted to get a letter like that.

A federal judge ruled that Florida's GOP-controlled legislature approved a pay to vote system. Since 2018, Florida felons who have completed sentences and probation for crimes other than murder and rape have had their voting rights restored. The legislature tried to imposed a restriction requiring felons to pay court fines and fees before they can register to vote, in violation of the 24th Amendment. Despicable, but not surprising. What was surprising was the estimate that 774,000 Florida felons, most of whom are black, have outstanding financial obligations. That's 3.8 percent of the state's population.

I've driven up and down the east coast many times, and back and forth across the country at several different stages of my early life. I attended six different elementary schools in one year but was able to hike mornings in the southwest desert and see sites most my childhood friends had never seen. I've often been dumbfounded by the vastness of this world, by the diversity of people, places, and things, but never have I witnessed in others the self-awareness that had begun to permeate my life. See Wanderlust Part 1.

Despite being an excellent student, I found myself with no direction or desire starting my senior year in high school, a year I barely remember, as I watched my friends explore college opportunities -- friends and places that I would visit on road trips over the next two years. I've made difficult decisions following my gut, such as choosing a public school over the prior parochial option at nine years of age after returning from a family move out west, and again when I decided to head back west, permanently (at the time unbeknownst to me), 15 years later.

I've flown to many places but my first flight was not until I was in grad school. My first flight to another country was a solitary trip that found me living for a summer in not so much a different world but a different state of mind, consumed by a world that had left me behind. I put a lot of miles on my car over the past decade, but far fewer than most people and very few miles in the last year. I haven't been on an airplane in years.

Kerouac was On the Road as a young post-war adult 10 to 15 years before my first trip. Jim Benning wrote that "by the time the book was published, the country Kerouac described was disappearing. Shortly before he died, Kerouac lamented the changes that had come to the road: 'You can't do what I did anymore'." I had a strange reaction after reading On the Road many years later. Rather than sensing the wanderlust that sent many on similar journeys, I felt instead an emptiness in the book and its real-life characters, not that unlike the similar feelings that I had traveling west and one year later going back east. I don't remember or I never knew why my family made either move. I also don't remember how On the Road ended, so I read the last paragraphs:

"So in America when the sun goes down and I sit on the old broken-down river pier watching the long, long skies over New Jersey and sense all that raw land that rolls in one unbelievable huge bulge over to the West Coast, and all that road going, all the people dreaming in the immensity of it ... and nobody, nobody knows what's going to happen to anybody besides the forlorn rags of old ..."

To paraphrase Robert Strauss, this lockdown is "a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired." Despite many people working to tire the gorilla, there's always someone to throw a monkey wrench into the works. And to quote Suzy Kassem: "A gorilla does not budge from a banana thrown at it by a monkey." What we have today is a gorilla, with a monkey throwing bananas at it, and neither appears ready to tire anytime soon.

A term originally used, disparagingly, to describe railbuffs, foamers refers to those so excited by something as to figuratively "foam at the mouth." One of our graduate students would ride on an Amtrak train when a different locomotive was scheduled for service and in California we have the Tehachapi Loop which is sort of an Area 51 or Roswell for rail foamers. I wonder if this term just might apply, loosely, to many urbanists: people who love historical cities or visions there of. Full disclosure: I like both, railroads and cities. But I don't necessarily want to live in an historical city or rely on trains to get around, at least not on a regular basis. I understand, to some degree, some of the many reasons why people wax nostalgic over selected elements of the past (they certainly do not want to relive historical fashions, communications, entertainment, or health care). But unlike most urbanists, railroad foamers don't want everybody else to share their manic behaviors.

Scientific studies suggest that prayer may provide benefits similar to meditation, specifically, that it can calm your nervous system leading to reductions in stress and anxiety. I do not doubt this but I think that any change of pace activity, whether it be prayer, meditation, exercising, reading, gaming, or taking a nap, will produce the same result. I find these random rants to do the same for me ... and then it's back to the routine wonders of the world.

James Wright (LA Times OpEd 25 May 2020) provides 20-20 vision on wars and pandemics, on Vietnam and COVID-19 in particular. He writes about the "cumulative and numbing" effect of mounting death counts, about the impacts of both on the same generation, and the difference between a pandemic that strikes randomly and a war that resulted from "calculated choices." I was nevertheless most taken by a simple statistic associated with the last two American casualties in Vietnam: their small hometowns lost a total of 22 young Americans to the war. These hometowns were about the same size as mine; their death counts from the war were about the same rate as the national average. From Auburn, New York there were 16 deaths in Vietnam. My year was one of the last draft lotteries and we were still immersed in Vietnam, yet I did not know any of these hometown residents who died on the other side of the world. But I now know their names.

In an LA Times OpEd (24 May 2020), Robin Abcarian writes about a particular meme -- it's not "OK Boomer" but is similar (not to mention sexist) so I'll refer to it as [meme]. Abcarian writes that the outspoken individuals characterized by this meme:

"... face few meaningful repercussions. Embarrassing videos posted on social media is usually as bad as it gets for [meme]. This is the subversive genius of the meme. It's not especially vicious, but with luck it causes all the [memes] out there to examine the way they move through the world. The [meme] meme exists for the amusement of those who take pleasure in watching the privileged take themselves down. It is observational, darkly funny and racially pointed: We see your privilege, even if you don't."

Update (30 May 2020): I was a bit surprised with letters responding to Abcarian's column, each from someone defending their given name from meme association. First, Abcarian didn't so much "draw attention" to the [meme] meme as to recognize that, well, it's a meme -- it already went viral. By the time your typical [meme] and people like me find out that they've been "memed", the odds are that the meme is no longer du jour. But a meme is not about any particular person sharing the meme's name; it's about people who share the meme's genetic structure (likely none of the letter writers themselves). One writer even suggested that the meme be renamed [Donald], an appropriate choice but I'm sure that a lot of Donalds out there would then be the ones complaining. I do agree with the sentiments expressed: the [meme] meme is unfair, elitist, and misogynistic but, to bring it full circle, each letter published only further spreads the meme about as much as Abcarian's original post. Which is to say, by now, not much. That's how a meme works.

The LA Times (22 May 2020) writes "Defiant pastors challenge Newsom ... saying churches are essential." Oddly, I agree. But just like other essential "entities" churches still need to adhere to other rules that apply equally to all, including social distancing and maximum event sizes. With that said, there is this one lingering thought that a supreme benevolent being would certainly understand if churchgoers were for the time being following the Golden Rule and not risking the lives of others. If educational institutions can continue to share their creed from afar, churches should be able to do the same.

We now know that even in SoCal the sky can be blue and the pavement is gray, and the reason that we can all notice this now is that most of the traffic is gone ... our so we thought. The traffic is down, so the pavement is visible, but it has been argued that weather may be the biggest part of the difference. After an extremely dry March, SoCal enjoyed a surprisingly wet April bringing clearer skies. This is something that can be analyzed since we have monthly data on traffic, air quality, and weather. Such analysis may help define the relative effects of traffic, measured by speed and not just Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), seasonal weather, and other factors influencing what kind of blue we see.

Rachel Cohen wrote:

"I hadn't set foot in a recording studio for the best part of eight years, and I was more than a little apprehensive. I needn't have worried. From the moment that I crossed the threshold into the control room, my nervousness evaporated. It felt like coming home, in all senses of the term."

"A wave of saudade swept over me as I realized home never existed at all.
The concept of home felt far from my reach, and I felt sick with longing."

"... the pleasure that we derive from a journey may be dependent more on the mind-set we travel with than on the destination we travel to." Alain de Botton

"The telephone ring sounds different -- did you get a new phone?" I asked.
"No," was the reply, "we moved."

"Telling moments ... As is often the case at the beginning,
we allow these moments to pass and pray we aren't looking into a crystal ball.
But more often than not, we're indeed being shown the future."
Ronan O'Brien

I understand but do not agree with rationales for maintaining the Electoral College rather than implementing a truly democratic option of electing the President by the popular vote. We now see the Supreme Court about to rule on faithless electors who fail to adhere to state voting rules. Assuming the Court agrees with Judge Kavanaugh's "chaos principle of judging" and maintains the status quo, then I propose that we do away with human electors altogether. Replace this unnecessary bureaucracy with faithful bots, one for each senator and representative in Congress, thus maintaining the Constitution's assignment of this power to the states while simultaneously obviating the process of appointing, electing, or assigning human electors. This of course does not address the rather embarrassing fact that we accept a "democracy" that does not guarantee election of the candidate who receives the most votes. That change will require a constitutional amendment which many politicians do not want since they appear to not value a true democracy.

An insightfully simple letter to the LA Times (12 May 2020) questions the oft-mentioned argument that the "2nd Amendment applies only to muzzle loaders, weapons prevalent at the time the U.S. Constitution was crafted" by suggesting that this would then also apply to the 1st Amendment regarding exchangeable type and colonial era single sheet printing. Things change.

A letter in today's LA Times received this appropriate editorial header, a letter written in response to an OpEd from Yeshiva University finance professor S. Abraham Ravid. First, I support the gradual and measured re-opening of the economy, with the emphasis on gradual and measured. However, what has been offered as rationalizations by Trump, Ravid, and many others in responsible positions (and also many other protesting American citizens) are idiotic. Trump suggests that the increase in deaths will be like sending our best into war, knowing many will not return. (FYI: War, as in what Trump promises the U.S. will no longer engage and which he personally avoided years ago.) This of course is one of the many arguments against war, that of sending our youth to violently determine the outcome of what those in power want. The many differences for a pandemic include that our best are already dying on the front lines working in hospitals to save lives and that the pandemic is the extreme of guerilla warfare where no one knows who's sheltering the enemy.

Then you have comments by Ravid comparing the "acceptance" of 35,000 automobile fatalities each year with deaths that will result from the indiscriminant re-opening of the economy, regardless of whether an area is ready to both mitigate and meet the almost certain increase in cases. The letters in the LA Times correctly stated that these two issues are entirely different since car crashes are neither contagious nor do they overwhelm out health care system. They also identify government response to fatalities which have dropped significantly and continuously on an exposure basis due to better road and control system design and better vehicle design (see Ballpark Figures and The Big Chill, the latter with particular relevance of rationalizations).

Los Angeles officials reversed a local Westside decision to close some streets for pedestrian activity, something done by "more than two dozen other U.S. cities ... that have created space for people to walk, bike, and jog at a safe distance during the coronavirus pandemic" (LA Times, 3 May 2020).

Yes, there's lots of street smarts here: people without their conventional access to parks, schools, gyms, and beaches do need a place to get out for some physical and emotional fitness. Local streets provide potential space, but the devil is in the details. In my neighborhood I've noticed far too many people wandering into streets to social distance from those on the sidewalk forgetting that they also need to physical distance from vehicles on the street. While there are more people on the sidewalks there doesn't seem to be any more on the many paths through the parks and connecting walkways (perhaps in part due to the grades and steps, which are not a factor on most streets and sidewalks). None of these pedestrian ways, however, are crowded (but then, the beach in Newport was less crowded than the lines seen outside grocery stores (or voting locations). Is there demand?

I drove through the Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard corridors on Saturday and was very surprised with how few people were biking and walking. In a very walkable West Hollywood neighborhood there were lots of people strolling, biking, and walking dogs, but no more than usual. But there was a noticeable reduction in vehicle traffic and, most oddly, no problems parking in residential streets. My question is whether there is indeed a real need for more space, at least at the level of closing streets in residential areas. First, residents will be impacted because they will not be able to access their own streets. Second, traffic will divert from closed streets to parallel routes, which will impact those residential areas (both moving and parked vehicles). And, third, as pointed out by LA Public Health officials, closing streets would likely draw large crowds from other areas. Advocates have called for more pedestrian spaces, often seeing cars and their dedicated spaces as prime territory for manifest destiny. It troubles me every time I hear advocates Trumpishly stating that "people" want something as if no quantification (or qualification) is required. There is the short-term bottleneck problem of shifting impacts into other areas but also the long-term problem of how long will such changes be in place. And, of course, there's the fundamental problem that our growth, and the utter lack of comprehensive planning, is the root cause of these problems. Many roads were congested before the pandemic; many pedestrian spaces are congested during the pandemic. The common implication may be too many people and not enough public space. But we need more than just street smarts to avoid a new age manifest destiny.

Sprawl, that favorite target of most planners, has rarely been properly defined. I find it odd that many terms in planning suffer the same fate, as if the art of planning holds clear precedence over any science. Most would consider sprawl to be simply location based with development occurring distant from current development and, presumably but in fact rarely, new development replacing farmland (the highest and best use?). But ask a planner what the opposite of sprawl is and you'll often get 'smart growth."

What is smart growth? While I disdain the use of 'smart' or 'intelligent' (or neo-anything) I find this term both appropriate and inappropriate. Smart growth does mean that land use development should consider all costs and benefits of any project, which include relative location, land use mix, resource demands, and a panoply of relevant impacts. But does this suggest that these factors were not considered when sprawl was the outcome? In most cases, one would find that different weights placed on different factors make the difference, and this implies subjectivity in any growth decision. A development proposal for the Tejon Ranch north of Los Angeles has faced deservedly hostile opposition. Would anti-sprawl advocates be happy with an alternative plan that features only high density development and automobile use restrictions any more than a plan to build the equivalent low density housing in the middle of high employment areas in LA proper? There is no objective definition of sprawl but those who complain about it apparently, as with other self-professed obscenities, "know it when they see it."

An article by Liam Dillon and an OpEd by Joel Kotkin appeared in the LA Times (26 April 2020) and considered what the typical LA naysayer criticizes as sprawl. Both pieces use the pandemic as a starting point and both to some degree confuse development density with other factors influencing pandemic severity. But even holding these other factors constant, it is difficult to think of thick housing (a high proportion of people per room) and the necessary elevators and public transit that enable thickness as being a positive influence on flattening the curve. Dillon writes that "density isn't density" and compares pandemic impacts on LA to select Asian metropolises and other domestic cities such as San Francisco. The bottom line is that people and their quality of life will determine how a population survives, both day-to-day and when facing extreme disruptions, and not the observable dimensions of housing density and public transit ridership. Most impacted have been those who lack good housing, good healthcare, and a sustainable environment. If the current administration has been perfect at anything, it's been doing all they can to make each of these basic needs even more impossible to achieve. Their myopic focus on restricting or eliminating living wages, healthcare, and environmental regulations is a vision that has cost American lives and livelihoods and will possibly cost the administration its tenure in office.

On the other side (of the country, of the issues, and of life in general), we have California's Governor Newsom and LA's Mayor Garcetti, each otherwise performing heroically during the pandemic but as Kotkin writes continuing "their dogmatic drive to promote both density and mass transit" (reminding me of Churchill's "The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"). In numerous prior posts I've commented regarding California's non-growth (net-outmigration and our declining birthrates have produced a (declining) 0.5% growth rate), the folly of linking housing to public transit, and the idiocy of f*cking with local governance of land use. Should the pandemic be used as another weapon to fight this west coast development myopia? It shouldn't need to be.

Update (2 May 2020): An LA Times letter criticizes Kotkin's arguments on the pandemic and sprawl by claiming two interrelated fallacies: the lower death rates for certain dense cities and "research showing higher-density, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented communities are healthier than low-density suburbs in terms of physical activity, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease." I think it is more likely that a well-organized government response with a conforming public does a better job explaining differences than density and that the quote does not mean that all dense areas are as described when in fact most poor urban areas are not.

Change is constant; big change not so much. I suspect that the difference between choices and constraints might be the critical fulcrum that determines the outcome of which changes will fade and which may become tomorrow's habits. The world can shut down under only the most immediate of threats to life but what choices will we make when the constraints are removed?

Many of our problems can be viewed as the potentially deadly combination of greed and sloth. Our capitalistic system favors greed. The yin to greed's yang is sloth, which can be defined as the acceptance of habit, often due to convenience, a condition imposed by greed to keep markets strong (and consumers in line).

There is no better current example than climate change. The same corporations, whose greed has driven our consumer society to trade tomorrow's health of the planet (and consumer health) for today's accumulation of wealth and power, require those very consumers to accept this pressure, which they do because the utility of consumption and the inconvenience of change produce habits that most of us are unwillingly to change. Sloth is the deadliest of sins since it enables greed and the other deadly sins. It's hard to change when it's easier to not.

It's a bit surprising that people are surprised that animals appear when people don't. A few letters to the LA Times (18 April 2020) commented on the fringe benefits of people staying put, including one oddly connecting the "impressive decreases in vehicle related deaths" with "no end to the positive impacts on the environment as a result of removing people from it." But I shouldn't take this particular writer to task since he concludes that it is "time to view population control as a major tool in combating global warming and pollution." But another writer is thrilled that "Yosemite has an opportunity to recover" but is dismayed that he "can't be there to see it." Hmmm.

The same LA Times has a headline that asks "How pandemic could reshape civilization." Most people judge the impacts of the pandemic by what they see more than what they don't see, especially the presence of blue skies and the absence of traffic. There are many ways to interpret such observations, so I imagined a conversation with a former colleague, USC's Marlon Boarnet, with his parts (unbeknownst to him) taken verbatim and in order from his comments in the LA Times article:

MB: "People tend to need a big shock to change their behavior."
Me: Big shocks can certainly change behavior, but what behavior and how will it change?
MB: "Now we see our day to day habits can change more quickly than we thought."
Me: I don't see how one can equate a public order to shelter in place at the risk of death with an individual decision to change behavior. The first is like finding out you have six months to live and the second is like a New Year's resolution to join a gym."
MB: "People have had the opportunity to telecommute."
Me: They've had that opportunity for decades, with varying success. Co-working space has become quite common with start-ups and small businesses and reflects direct telecommuting as well as simply working at home on selected days. We still have more traffic than ever.
MB: "The reality is that they didn't have to go to every conference."
Me: I've seen your year-end holiday letter and can only wonder what your frequent flier mileage is ...
MB: "And we're getting a glimpse of what Los Angeles could look like if we could get ahead of our transportation problem."
Me: Would it look smaller, as in less people and thus less traffic?
MB: "Public officials need 'to make some of the positive changes permanent.'"
Me: There's the rub. Which changes are positive and to whom? More importantly, which changes that you've observed are actual changes of behavior and not just imposed constraints?
MB: "If we had everybody telecommute a day a week, you would have an incredible air quality improvement."
Me: Yes, but for how long? As soon as any capacity is made available, despite the strategy applied, the cost of travel would decrease and place upward pressure on travel demand. The problem is not too much traffic; it's too many people. If an area is growing, or already has suppressed demand, any capacity made available will soon be consumed like toilet paper in a pandemic.

The article then shifts away from transportation to the public health field, which appears to have some basic knowledge that "pandemics are famously idiosyncratic in the havoc they cause and the human adaptations that emerge in their wake." The transportation field could learn something about such behavior and adaptation. I can envision a renewed focus on understanding travel behavior by analyzing activity needs and constraints ... naaah.

Disclosure: I did not run this past Marlon. He does have a sense of humor but I don't know whether he had the opportunity to express it during the interview, so I took the liberty ...

There are two types of people in this world: those with an open-mind toward most issues, from what is possible if not probable to what is unlikely if not seemingly impossible, and those who place their beliefs like eggs in a single basket. The second is a fairly easy choice for those who have not been taught to think: accept on faith that which you were told is correct. Whether it is a parent, a pastor, a teacher, a politician, or any other mentor, just follow the leader. Such leaders play the role of a shepherd, leading the flock on a myopic path, accepting no dissent from within or without.

Following your own path with an open mind is no guarantee for success, for it is not an easy road. But it is certainly not a road lacking conviction. In fact, such independent behavior requires the strongest sense of conviction, a belief that there is value in being open to new perspectives rather than adhering to the relative safety of a closed mind, misguided loyalty, or blind faith.

The first type of people are in essence the true believers, since it is the process that is important in the search for meaning and not any ephemeral set of ideas or opinions. While such individuals may often change their minds, this will be only with respect to an issue, not to the process of discovery. An atheist, far from believing in nothing at all, believes that all is possible. If presented with overwhelming evidence of a more valid position, they would be open to acceptance. The second type of people, the self-claimed believers, are indoctrinated to a professed truth. Even if presented with overwhelming evidence of a more valid position, they would not likely be open to acceptance.

Believing and not believing is so ingrained in our world that the absence of a position in a (false) binary choice is not imaginable to most people. I was once asked by a New Yorker if I was a Yankee fan and my response of 'not really' was quickly followed by "Oh, a Mets fan," as if no other choice existed, including the choice to not consider the choice at all. And I don't mean the choice of not being a baseball fan but, rather, the choice of not even contemplating that there is a choice to consider.

A part of the Transportation Research Board's Centennial Celebration is the "Tell Us Your Story" challenge. TRB poses a version of Aristotle's Septem Circumstantiae: what brought you to where you are today and what is your vision for TRB 100 years from now? It's of interest to note that 1920 was a rather remarkable year with many events foreshadowing current concerns. But I am not a fan of long term forecasts. After all, who in 1920 would have predicted such explosive impacts as the roaring '20s, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, drug cartels, and international terrorism, or that we would be dealing with a pandemic more significant than the one that was just nearing the end of its fatal course 100 years ago? Each of these events had significant impacts on daily life in general and associated impacts on transportation and activity policy and technology.

While Poincare's rejoinder on "foreseeing even without certainty" bears attention, so does an appropriate dose of skepticism. A vision of public transit offered by Mack Trucks in the 1950s nicely illustrates the foibles of forecasting too far into the future. Their "coast to coast" bus was essentially a cruise ship on wheels featuring a landing strip on top offering "Airplane Side Trips," a forecast approximately backwards and precisely wrong.

The Eno Center for Transportation is offering a webinar (29 April 2020) "There's No Tool Like Curbs: The Powerful Mobility Tool Every City Already Has." City goals are assumed to include transportation systems that promote mobility, safety, equity, climate and accessibility goals. Achieving these goals has become more complex but Eno identified curb space management policy as a powerful tool to reach mobility goals.

Maybe some solutions have been right in front of your eyes all along, or at least right in front of each downtown business's front door. But not so fast -- as with any need, or any opportunity, real planning is required. What are the exact problems to be addressed, what are the resources that will be consumed, reallocated, or wasted by any proposed "solution" to the identified problems?

On the demand side, changes are evident in many urban areas, including decreases in bus ridership (and possibly in bus vehicle-volumes), increases in shared modes (ride hailing), and increases in non-motorized transport (including walk, bike, and micro-transit). Car ownership has perhaps peaked and autonomous vehicles keep threatening to make their promised landscape-changing appearance. On the other hand, our current pandemic, evolving transportation and communication technologies, and fundamental socio-demographic changes are bound to influence current travel demands.

On the supply side, with a small number of exceptions, cities own and control sidewalks and streets, and thus the curb space that delineates their separation. How is this curb space currently used? Let me count the ways: as travel lanes (including some that are mode-restricted such as bus or bike lanes and some that are movement-restricted such as right turn only lanes); for loading and unloading of both passengers and freight (including bus stops); and parking (which is often metered and thus municipal potential revenue source).

Sidewalks can get crowded (and not just due to social distancing) and walking seems to be increasing, especially in cities. Bikes and micro-transit fall between walking and driving: in most case, these modes are not allowed on sidewalks and must follow motor vehicle regulations. The expression "fall between" has not only a functional interpretation but also a spatial meaning. Curb lanes filled with parked cars often act like a wall, with some safety benefits for pedestrians but real safety costs for in-between modes, not to mention interruptions in access-egress imposed by vehicles at the curb (including buses, ride hailing, freight, and personal vehicles).

Curbside parking has been a subsidy for local businesses so eliminating convenient parking can have economic impacts on local communities where off-street parking is not always available and where a dense local population is often not in place. Many denser, growing cities have provided off-street parking in zoning requirements, but retrofitting is usually not a cost-effective option. Removal of parking could shift parking demand to neighboring streets and shift economic activity to other areas (traffic calming strategies often have a similar impact).

I was once approached by a parking guru who said that his students claimed that I said parking should be free. I could not tell whether this was a "surely they must be wrong" moment or an honest question, but I gave an honest answer. Charging for parking is like enrolling students in public schools and telling them when they arrive that they have to pay to sit at a desk. If driving a personal vehicle is allowed, then parking it is a necessary part of the trip. You would not allow cars to drive on any street but charge them each time they wanted to make a right turn in a dense area (but perhaps not as much as a left turn fee). I fully recognize that there is a real cost to parking, but the economics can be quite complex. My design standard is that all elements of cost should be reflected at the origin of the trip, not at the destination, but I wouldn't get to excited about seeing such a strategy come to pass.

My take (with apologies to Ian Anderson) on Ryan Fonseca's reflections on LA traffic in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic:

"Where there was a rush along the 405. There's now a hush in the passion play."

So transit ridership is down, but what about traffic volumes? The New York Times' Winnie Hu writes about "N.Y.'s Changed Streets" (9 April 2020) sounding much like Judge Doom envisioning a future with "Faster buses. Plentiful parking. Cleaner air. A shift in habits offers a glimpse of what the city could be like without so much congestion." (Full disclosure: the Judge had an alternative future in mind). Hu quotes meaningful statistics: daily VMT plunging 64 percent, exceeding 60 percent in San Francisco and 53 percent in Los Angeles, the land of blue skies (when our equally atypical rain stops).

"You just don't see traffic like this ever," said Samuel Schwartz, aka "Gridlock Sam" (I've always wondered about that moniker: Fantastic Sam supposedly gives fantastic haircuts so what does Gridlock Sam do?). And NYU's Sarah Kaufman adds "It falls along the lines of 'never let a crisis go to waste.'" Really? Hasn't Trump been attacked (IMHO rightfully so) for pressing his anti-immigration, anti-regulation, anti-environment platform while we're mired in the same crisis? Does Kaufman really think that most people will appreciate what the goose wants to do while the gander is being plucked? Yes, I realize that Kaufman likely wants "good things" like fewer cars, less pollution, and pedestrian and bike safety while Trump wants, well, basically the opposite, but I rarely if ever accept that the ends justify the means.

Kaufman says that the pandemic induced congestion relief "is a way to assess what's truly essential in the city and reprioritize our spaces and mobility options for what makes the most sense." Really? Having virtually the entire population stay home, shutting down the city's 24/7 culture, and stopping the economy yields what's "truly essential"? Egads! To avoid falling down a rabbit hole of disbelief I will only offer an equally misconceived quip about educational institutions: they would be nice places to work if it weren't for all the students.

Transit use is down, but as Jarrett Walker writes in Citylab (7 April 2020) "it's (about) more than just ridership." I agree, but not when he adds "in a pandemic, we're all 'transit dependent.'" He reports NYC transit ridership has collapsed ("stabilized around 70% below pre-crisis levels") but that many agencies report bigger declines, not surprising given the work commute focus on many services (BART has lost 93% of its riders).

A financial disaster may well occur and while I strongly agree with Walker regarding transit being about much more than ridership (and the cost subsidies) I'm not so sure I agree with his end game that "buses, trains, and subways make urban civilization possible." It may well be the case today (or yesterday) that public services enable urban civilization but just how should we be responding? Support transit to support current urban civilization, or evolve our cities and evolve civilizations? My position is decidedly not driven by current or future pandemic concerns but I cannot deny the opportunity to re-think how cities have developed over time in what has been more of a laissez-faire approach rather than due to the human plans that are so widely touted.

Do we know whether people who live in cities have made an active choices to do so or do they simply not have alternatives? Educated people who embrace cities tend to promote what they consider to be the humanity of a 24/7 culture that is free from most things they don't value. I'm not anti-city (or in large measure anti-anything), I'm just pro-choice. I don't want to live in a big city and I'm more than willing to forego any associated benefits because for me they are outweighed by the costs. In my future eye I spy: cities, smaller on most relevant dimensions, with cores that are walkable, car and pollution free, but strongly connected to other options that are relatively close by. I could go on, and I have, to the considerable annoyance of my colleagues (who rarely if ever propose alternatives to my decidedly non-urban utopian visions). But I won't, except that I do have to mention the two key ingredients of my vision: we must reduce resource consumption and population, and we must accept that not everyone loves a bus.

Keep transit fully functional while we're in this crisis, not because it will help "prevent the collapse of civilization" but because for now we need to keep things as normal as possible. While we're waiting, let's think about what role cities might play in our "more uncertain than usual" future, especially one where virtual travel could become the new norm.

In 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant, effectively ending the Civil War. Moments in time. Time to move on.

Historical data (EPA) suggests that the Los Angeles area has just enjoyed the longest stretch of clean air since 1980 (when EPA started collecting this data), as reported in Curbed LA. Social distancing due to COVID-19 and a very rainy month due to Mother Nature are the causes. The article states that a pandemic is not the way we'd want to achieve better air quality but one wonders to what degree, if even a portion of LA residents were to telecommute or use any form of transportation that doesn't consume fossil fuels, would an improvement in air quality be realized? Oddly, my limited observations of pedestrian activity in parks and on walkways over the past few weeks (at least when it wasn't raining) suggests that pedestrian infrastructure may well be insufficient to accommodate a measurable increase in walking (similar to transit being incapable of serving any significant ridership increase without major system expansion). We have a lot to think about.

An EDF analysis (using EPA models) examined the serious and lasting pollution, energy, economic, and security implications of the Trump administration's profoundly damaging plan to rollback domestic Clean Car Standards. EDF's results suggest:

1. An additional 1.5 billion metric tons of climate pollution over the next decade (about the same as generated by 68 coal plants operating for five years;
2. Over the lifetime of cars produced under these rules, 18,500 more premature deaths, 250,000 more asthma attacks, 350,000 more other respiratory ailments, and 1 million lost work days from health issues;
3. Costs of $190 billion to our economy due to these health impacts;
4. Over the next 10 years, Americans will pay $244 billion more at the gas pump;

The Week reports that the Hobby Lobby chain (you may recall Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 US 682 in 2014) will remain open during the pandemic, but don't worry. The CEO's wife received a message from God that He will specifically protect Hobby Lobby and its employees. No mention about similar perqs for customers.

I'm not saying that there isn't a God and I'm not saying that He doesn't directly speak to people. But isn't someone hearing voices typically a indicator that there might be something else worth examining? I mean, if it's a good thing you're hearing, then it probably is God, and if it's a bad thing you're hearing, then it probably isn't (at least that's what most individuals on the receiving end tend to think). But running it by an otolaryngologist first might save you some embarrassment, and now-a-days maybe save some lives.

An article in Psychology Today (1 April 2020, no joke assumed) asks about media exposure to COVID-19: "How Much Is Too Much?" Colleagues at UC Irvine have concluded that "repeated media exposure to community crisis can lead to increased anxiety, heightened stress responses that can lead to downstream effects on health, and misplaced health-protective and help-seeking behaviors that can overburden health care facilities and tax available resources."

Ya think? Nothing had annoyed me more than the general flow of "fake news" from Pennsylvania Avenue, but I still needed to tune in daily to various media outlets, hoping for the best. With COVID-19, something that could directly affect me, I've simply stopped watching the news and quickly delete any related emails or list serve postings. It's like an LA car chase 24/7.

Trevor Noah had an interesting take on why many people are not taking the COVID-19 pandemic seriously. He said you can't see it. If this were a plague of brain-eating zombies (are there other kinds?) then we'd all pay full attention. When the all clear signal is announced, most people would say "Are you sure?" before venturing outside. If the response was "Sorta, but there are still a few preying on the unsuspecting" then you just might decide to wait before resuming you prior schedule. But COVID-19? How bad can it really be?

The situation is an order of magnitude more difficult when it comes to climate change: there's nothing immediately threatening to see and no one to personally blame ... until it will be too late. We've had plenty of warnings and actual events that point toward what virtually all scientist conclude: climate change is real and it's impact will be far larger than that for COVID-19. And there won't be a vaccine to protect you from climate change impacts. Whether you agree that we are the cause of climate change or not, you must agree that we alone possess the capability to try to control it. Maybe it's time to start flattening the climate change curve.

A letter to the LA Times (25 March 2020) complains "my teenage sons ... are stuck at home. They don't just want to go for a walk. They should be able to go to one of our local parks to exercise." This is followed by a Trumpian proclamation that questions whether "the risks of illness and death from COVID-19 for the general population outweigh the benefits of exercise, nature contact and fresh air?" (I guess Spock and Kirk were just wrong about the needs of the one). But what if you can have both? That walk your sons don't want can be a run, or just a walk in nature with plenty of fresh air. The writer adds that "a singles match of tennis easily meets social-distancing recommendations." Well, yes, if you play without a ball, don't touch the net, and don't sweat on the court. Last, the author declares that "Parks are public health." Well, so are toilets.

"I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations."
Michael (Jeff Goldblum in The Big Chill, 1983)

In a related OpEd across the fold, Roger Lowenstein discusses "How to balance saving humans and rescuing the economy." He echoes Trump's "the cure should not be worse than the disease" with tenuous analogies including: (a) setting the speed limit to 65 and accepting 35,000 annual fatalities; (b) 15,000 non-self-inflicted gunshot deaths; and (c) annual deaths from the common flu on the order of the tens of thousands. Lowenstein recognizes that these are trade-offs that do not necessarily reflect any level of optimality, but Lowenstein also does not reflect the complexities of these analogies.

First, consider speed. Studies completed in the 1970s when federal speed limits were reduced to 55 mph strongly suggested that fatalities were related to speed variation and not to average speed. Setting speed limits has always been something that confuses many people but which reflects the science of speed distributions, the design of highway facilities, the human factors of driving, and a range of warrants for adjusting speeds. But it is wrong to suggest that all of these fatalities were speed-related, when drugs and alcohol as well as distracted driving account for a sizable portion, not to mention not adhering to safety requirements such as seat-belt use. The primary cause of traffic accidents is not speed but rather a lack of experience and attention on the part of humans. There are relatively few fatalities during the increasing portion of the day with heavy traffic congestion since the variation in speed is so low. What must be understood is the significant increases in vehicle and roadway safety that have supported a continuous drop in fatality rates per vehicle mile traveled. Roads, despite the human elements, have never been safer. Government explicitly has always been doing something about roads to make them safer while also accommodating human social and economic behavior.

Second, government is not doing much about gun fatalities, hiding behind the unfortunately clear right to bear arms that is part of the Constitution. Driving and vaccinations are not directly part of the Constitution, although deference to the public good, and public health in particular, could and should lead to action in these areas. But there are underlying causes here as well. The violence that leads to many if not most of these non-self-inflicted deaths is a product of poverty and broken government systems that fail large portions of our society.

Third, COVID-19 appears to be spread much more easily than the common flu. While many people do not get flu shots, many if not most people in high risk cohorts do, especially if they are covered by health insurance (which usually covers this cost). Government needs to step up in this area, but unfortunately appears to be moving in the opposite direction. And please do not compare annual flu deaths with the COVID-19 fatality numbers thus far. These will likely be much higher by virtue of the higher rate of transference and a significantly higher fatality rate. The COVID-19 situation is drastically different than flu, obesity, or similar ills currently prevalent based on these two factors. This does not mean that government should not be doing something about these other problems, but they clearly are not as urgent.

I agree with Lowenstein that a long-term economic shut down will have unforeseen consequences (he mentions smuggling, black markets, and lawlessness, all factors that have been experienced in prior periods of economic disruption). I too believe that, in time, and I have no idea how much time this will be, parts of the economy should be allowed and encouraged to re-start, perhaps based on spatial distributions of COVID-19 cases (this would encourage areas to do everything possible to reduce the spread to allow the economy to reset more quickly). It can also be done for various cohorts and not others. Those individuals in cohorts with the greatest risk should be encouraged and supported, even financially, to not go back to work or other activity. But government should not expose all citizens to risks that are clear and present.

"We're going to back the airlines 100% -- it's not their fault," said our clueless leader. Well, actually, it sort of is -- COVID didn't swim over from China. The economics are real due to the debt of extremely expensive airplanes and the need for airline solvency when the demand is back, so I'm troubled more by the expression "not their fault." The public safety net of social security, medicare, and various programs addressing homelessness and poverty has been under constant attack by the current administration so one can only assume that our problems (maybe even COVID) are indeed the fault of the elderly, the poor, and the uninsured. "We're not going to back them 100% -- someone's got to take the blame." It won't be the one percenters. And it certainly won't be our clueless leader.

Inglewood will soon have not only the new SoFi Stadium (for the Rams and the Chargers) but also a performing arts venue, and significant redevelopment of the former Hollywood Park site, as well as the LA Forum across the street and a possible arena for the LA Clippers. If you thought that the Forum and Hollywood Park generated traffic decades ago, you ain't seen nothin' yet! An editorial in the LA Times (19 March 2020) calls for a "People Mover for Inglewood" to provide an "environmentally friendly, efficient public transit" option. There is an utter lack of planning once again resulting in reactionary politics, with major land development proceeding independently from transportation development. This massive development is more than a mile from the closest station on the still under-construction Crenshaw/LAX light rail line, one of a continuing examples of a failure to communicate. The people mover is proposed to close this last mile gap, but a people mover system can only handle about 5,000 people per hour, which is not sufficient to address the 70,000 attendees at the stadium or even smaller crowds at the other venues there was a similar conceptual gap with a proposed aerial tramway from downtown LA to Dodger Stadium). At a cost of over $1 billion, is yet another transportation technology really the best way to close this spatial gap? More importantly, is the conceptual gap between land development and transportation development even addressable?

Eat too much? Get a bigger belt. Or maybe a more elastic one. Soon, technology improvements might provide belts that automatically respond to how much food is input upstream and self-adjust to accommodate throughput further downstream. Did I mention you could also eat less? The more you eat, the greater the negative impacts of over-eating, regardless of belt type. As long as you keep eating more, the best you can do is essentially discomfort management which only can address the symptoms of overeating.

What about roads? Too much traffic trying to enter your roadway? Why just get a bigger belt. Or maybe you can use new technologies to adjust how traffic uses the roadway via various forms of corridor management. Any action that improves flow, however, essentially increases capacity. Any increase in capacity will cause flow to reallocate from other routes and time periods, and can also cause changes in mode use and destinations visited. These short-term changes are simply a re-equilibration of demand and the world is, in general, better off since more people are accessing their desired activities, typically with improved overall performance. Is this induced demand? No, since most of these trips are already being made, so current demand (consumption) just has different attributes (tastes). The culprit of course is over-eating, not by current diners but rather by new diners. In a word, growth. This is why we don't speak of reducing congestion anymore; we can only manage it. In both cases, roadway and gastrointestinal traffic, there is but one solution. Control growth.

Six feet away today or six feet down tomorrow.

An ornithologist tells a story of another ornithologist telling a story at an ornithologist conference (stop me if you've heard this one). All golden-crowned sparrows, it seems, have one dialect, but a very special one had two. The ornithologist telling the story, Daizaburo Shizuka, changed countries, cultures, and languages at the age of seven, at the tail end of the critical period for language acquisition, a common constraint for both humans and birds. This dual dialect sparrow was always observed alone, and Shizuka was interested in both the bird's and his own sense of isolation due to language.

The LA Times opinion page (15 March 2020) provides Caroline Van Hemert's wonderful essay that relays Shizuka's story about the sparrow's fate:

"Despite his unique talents, or perhaps because of them, he never found a mate. Eventually, while all the other birds were busy raising their young, he stopped singing. One day he simply disappeared."

Question: In which e-newsletter did this appear?

"Wall Street briefly pared its losses on Thursday as investors reacted to the Federal Reserve's announcement that it would dramatically increase liquidity by injecting as much as $1.5 trillion into the economy with an unprecedented series of asset purchases! Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich tweeted, "Total student loan debt: $1.7 trillion. Total cost of the Fed's short-term bank funding: $1.5 trillion. America has socialism for the rich, harsh capitalism for everyone else." Rev. William Barber of the Poor People's Campaign tweeted, "Overnight they found $1.5 trillion for Wall St, but they can't find money to provide healthcare and living wages for 140 million poor and low wealth people in America."

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in UCI's Annual Eckstein Lecture being canceled, Suzanne Mettler's "Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy." While these threats have reappeared over our history, Mettler calls it alarming that all four -- political polarization, racism and nativism, economic inequality, and excessive executive power -- are present in American politics today. Alarming indeed.

MIT economics professor David Autor appeared on PBS's Amanpour and Co (with Walter Isaacson) to discuss the evolution of work. Among many interesting comments he suggested that we need to stop thinking in binary regarding employment status. Addressing gig workers such as Uber and Lyft drivers, Autor suggested that the burden of supporting labor has been rejected by many such companies who consider workers to be consultants so the company is not responsible for conventional benefits that most regular employees earn. We need to stop thinking in terms of either/or.

Isabel Hagen on the Tonight Show (#1223):

"Is love the only thing that after you lose it, you doubt you ever had it? When I lose my keys, it's like, maybe I never had them. I was letting myself into my house with lies ..."

Dichotomies: one either loves them or hates them. There seems to be little motivation to move away from this binary perspective; rather, its gone viral, to the point that which is loved the most and that which is hated the most come to dominate one's being at the expense of all else. These bizarro blinders limit what little daily focus one can muster to only the extreme actions on what is on the periphery of one's vision. Step back, take a deep breath, put down your phone, and take a walk. And listen.

No, this is not a new exploration-oriented store at the knowledge mall, but the gist of an essay by K.C. Cole ("Invention and Discovery") where she considers opinions of several scientists regarding a potential sexist orientation of yang-dominated exploration in the "Age of Discovery" as being more, well, discovery-oriented. The yin side of the equation has a greater sense of creation, with one scientist surmising that chemistry is more creative-oriented with many lab substances never occurring in nature and thus not discoverable. Birth perhaps is the ultimate creation (although there's often an element of discovery prior to the creation-reality setting in). I'm not sure about this gender-based interpretation. And what does this suggest regarding engineering and applied science which is typically male dominated yet focused on creation rather than discovery. And what does this imply regarding theories of a god-creator? Maybe we'll discover someday ...

Take a nap, junior.

A letter to the LA Times (3 March 2020) responds to yet other letters ("'Geezers'? Really?" 29 Feb 2020) responding to a Virginia Heffernan column (27 Feb 2020) addressing "The Democrats' crotchety geezer shtick ..." Heffernan's OpEd piece also utilized kitsch, bickering, tussling, tetchiness, and many other geriatric terms to make her point which is, well, I'm not really sure (and, no, this is not a senior moment on my part). It may be easy to categorize boomers by their physical appearance and mental quickness, but then it is even easier to do the same with Gen Xers (such as Heffernan) and Millennials. But what really is the difference between not sharply recalling a particular term, name, or date and not even being aware of it, or its impertinence, in the first place? The first batch of response letters held similar reactions including the observation that using comparably dismissive terms for other demographic groups would likely not be acceptable. But I especially liked the last letter, entitled by the Times "Grow up, geezers" (perpetuating this potential political incorrectness). The writer thinks not only are geezers old but are "too" old, concluding that "We need an upper age limit for the presidency." Maybe age limits, upper and lower, for voters, or even for letter writers?

In "Not embracing this N.Y. theory about L.A." Steve Lopez (LA Times 26 Feb 2020) takes a New York Times article to task that claims that "we are prone to over-hugging here in La La Land." (Full disclosure: I'm from "back east" and I'm more inclined to the position that people back there don't hug very much at all, this from someone who is decidedly not a hugger). Lopez got a real kick (and a column) by mocking an article that references a hugging culture incorporating shamans, goddess circles, psychedelic mushrooms, excessively long hugs (and commutes), and an utter paucity of representative samples. What I find interesting is not the various perspectives that may exist regarding cultural differences between New York and Los Angeles (not to mention between LA and San Francisco) but the fact that observers of any such differences seem to be oriented more toward shtick than substance, regardless of their current locational preference.

"An LAX perk for transit riders" is an LA Times Editorial (25 Feb 2020) that proposes that people who take public transit to LAX be allowed to cut to the front of airport security lines. My first thought, and likely the editors only thought, was "sure, why the hell not?" But just what impact would this have? First, there really are no convenient public transit options, rail or bus, to LAX so this might be a perk but not likely an incentive to use transit. And just how, when, and where would someone identify transit users? The devil is in the details, and those details would require first establishing viable transit alternatives to LAX. What constitutes viable? No idea.

I have repeatedly made two points regarding the continued use of standardized tests such as the SAT. The first is that these tests are easily gamed, if you have the money. Companies that guarantee an improved test score if you pay for their courses are successful because their services work, if you have the money. The results are biased, with inflated scores for those privileged with family wealth and knowledge of gaming effectiveness. Second, this bias is ultimately self-defeating since inflated scores should not map to college success (unless, of course, the underlying privilege continues to be effective). If the tests are theoretically effective at placing students with an institution appropriate with the student's real abilities, then misrepresentation by inflated scores will admit students that are not actually qualified at the perceived level. Second, by now there should be a track record comparing high school grade point averages (GPA) from most schools with eventual performance in most colleges. If there is grade inflation at a given school, then the performance of students from that school should be lower on average than the performance of similarly qualified students from schools without grade inflation. The same way that standardized test can be normalized over socio-economic and other control variables, high school GPSs can be normalized. The difference, however, is that it is not easy or even possible to game GPA performance over a four year period compared to a 3-4 hour exam (and one that can be repeated with some control over what gets reported).

An LA Times OpED (21 February 2020) repeats some of the fallacies often used in support of keeping standardized tests. First, understand that I am not opposed to standardized test, as long as they are properly normed to account for preparation. First, they state that test scores are only part of the evaluation process, and are not counted as heavily as grades. This does not change the fact that these test scores are biased and any accounting in evaluation is thus biased, regardless of assigned weights. They claim that test scores, however, are better predictors of college success. I can speak only to results for engineering students at UC Irvine which have shown that household income, and not college success, is the only thing that correlates with SAT scores. For engineering students, performance in high school math and science courses are the best indicators of college success. The LA Times also challenges the bias in high school GPAs given known grade inflation typically associated with the same privilege that creates bias in standardized test scores. As discussed above, the GPA bias is much more easily controlled than the standardized test bias.

While I have called for the replacement of one-shot standardized test with four years of (ideally standardized) evaluations in many different high school courses, I should point out that my comments themselves are biased in that my experience is with students in STEM areas, in general, and with engineering in particular. Perhaps I should call for differential admission requirements and evaluations based on the degree program sought (the School of Engineering at UC Irvine is already calling for changes in the admission process for engineering students). Last, the LA Times does mention that alternative testing is being considered but makes no comment on the easier task of controlling GPA biases. I am not a fan of any form of "repeal and replace" -- what we need is to redirect our focus toward assessing performance, which is measured continuously, over four years of high school, and not for a 3 hour exam. Only then should the current standardized test process be dumped.

42. The ultimate answer in search of the proverbial question? I'm now listening to "42" from "Don't Panic" by Izz (clocking in at an appropriate 18 minutes and 42 seconds). I've always been a hitchhiker thumbing for questions and usually find potential answers, but not so much anymore. I seem to be cycling around the event horizon of a black hole, pouring questions in with nothing coming back. Maybe it's a case of "turnabout is fair play," maybe it's just the infinite improbability of meaning, or maybe it's just age. But I guess I shouldn't panic and throw in the towel in my perpetual search for a heart of gold.

The following quote provides an excellent summary regarding current discussions on the relative merit of skills training in place of higher education. I do not think that a college education is for everyone, but skills training is not an alternate preparation for many of the future leaders that society needs to flourish.

"There are no short cuts to cultivating the habits of the mind and heart that, over time, enable people to deepen their learning, develop resilience, transfer information into action, and creatively juggle and evaluate competing ideas and approaches. These are the kinds of proficiencies and dispositions needed to discover alternative responses to challenges presented by the changing nature of today's jobs or for work not yet invented. Workplaces, societal institutions, and the world order are only going to get more complicated and challenging to navigate and manage, increasing the need for people with accumulated wisdom, interpersonal and practical competence, and more than a splash of critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and altruism." George D. Kuh [hbr.org]

I'm missing something. The liberal LA Times appears to support "draining the housing swamp" by up-ending nearly 100 years of local control over zoning and land use in their support of SB 50, but states opposition to Marc Levine's (D-San Rafael) AB 2070 which would mandate ballot submission by all registered voters (i.e., resorting to "threats and intimidation to get people to the polls"). Please read the LA Times editorial (7 Feb 2020) which clearly spells out why this bill is "a really bad idea." It is: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." The LA Times seems to think otherwise when it comes to removing local control over housing and imposing new requirements from the state-level, upending local zoning and providing a threat to homeowners committed to local communities.

Really? I'm trying to find a tongue planted firmly in the cheek of this letter to the LA Times today but I was unable to do so. So the state of California is at fault for this tragedy since it allowed congestion to exist and thus caused Bryant to adopt a "personal solution" which in the end cost him his life. The author gives up his motive by adding "we need to get people out of their cars." But apparently not out of their helicopters.

"Love seems the swiftest, but it is the slowest of all growths. No man or woman really knows
what perfect love is until they have been married a quarter of a century." Mark Twain

A Berlin artist used 99 cell phones to spoof Google into indicating a traffic jam. I've always wondered how traffic estimation would deal with multiple cell phones in a car (or on a bus) but not about an intentional spoof such as Simon Weckert pulling 99 cell phones in a red wagon along Berlin streets. Google Map software showed heavy, slow-moving traffic while the actual streets had virtually none. Weckert showed that it was possible to impact the real network by spoofing cell phone tracking and he further turned up the dial by considering how mapping apps such as Google's are changing what a map is (I've blogged about brain impacts of IT-based wayfinding).

"Back at base, bugs in the software, flash the message, something's out there."

SB50 failed for the third time (so, I guess it was neither charm nor harm), falling short in the California Senate, with many SoCal senators concerned about far-reaching impacts of the proposed bill that would overhaul zoning at the state level. In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times (31 January 2020) asks "With SB 50 dead, what next?" Umm, maybe a bit more common sense? Maybe not beating a dead horse? Maybe focusing on bringing those in need up rather than essentially bringing everyone else down?

Whatever the purported objectives of SB50, the bill would have given the State say over local zoning, with a target painted on single family housing. SB 50 would have allowed multi-family developments to replace homes in single-family developments that are near public transit service (including bus lines which are not fixed in place). Say what you will about the equity impacts of policies that supported home ownership (and not just ownership of single-family homes), home value is the biggest investment made by domestic households, and this investment is safe-guarded by local zoning laws. Laws that change this are equivalent to Proposition 13: California households have invested under these policies thus these policies should not be changed if they negatively impact homeowners.

I've written previously that California is growing most slowly, under one half of one percent per year. This is due to births, with a net out-migration and declining birth rates signaling even slower growth in the future. Even if there is a housing shortage, this is not the time to change the economic and literal foundation of state households. Some of these progressive ideas are enough to turn a life-long liberal into a conservative.

Addendum: George Skelton's column in today's LA Times (3 Feb 2020) is headlined "sprawl prevails ..." Really? A San Fernando Valley senator is deemed by Skelton to be "a leader of the L.A. death squad" ... "who helped whack a bill pushed by a lawmaker from San Francisco, arguably the state's most densely populated city." For those who have been paying attention, no further reading is necessary, and I quote myself:

The biggest difference between those who love living in big cities and those who don't
is that those who do, can't comprehend why those who don't, don't.

Addendum 2: In an LA Times letter (4 February 2020), an LA Housing Authority commissioner reacts to the defeat of SB 50 and suggests that the City could achieve the housing goals by adding multiple family units in areas already so zoned. It is unclear why he calls it ironic that LA could have successfully implemented SB 50 housing requirements in the two year period before SB 50 would assume local control, since the City can still achieve this while maintaining full local land use control.

Removing vehicle traffic from dense urban, pedestrian-oriented environments makes sense. An LA Times editorial reports the success of a conversion on Market Street in downtown San Francisco (LA emulating the City by the Bay?) and calls for similar stretches in downtown LA to "reclaim public space from vehicles" (space that has been designed for vehicles over the past 100 years). LA Mayor Garcetti's Green New Deal calls for fifty percent of all trips in the city to be made by walking, biking, and public transit by 2035. However, don't bet on car free zones and similar measures that require significant infrastructure change to be able to attain this goal. That would be a real "stretch" since there just isn't enough transit, nor willing people, to make these changes, although those who currently walk, bike, or use transit will be happier.

Local LA TV news loves a car chase. All other news coverage is dropped and the entire focus is on aerial coverage of the chase. Why do viewers stay engrossed? You rarely find out who the culprit is, and the culprit is caught virtually all of the time. Fortunately, but surprisingly, injuries to other parties are rare. A chase that safely ends with a pit manoeuver always seems satisfying, although one wonders if maybe viewers are hoping for something different. Local TV News, in general, and car chases in particular, have become the ultimate reality TV. Car chases may not reflect a known cast of characters behaving badly following an "un-scripted script" but they do reflect truly real but unknown characters behaving dangerously. Must See TV indeed.

Cheating has always been a part of sports, and life in general, due to the unfortunate premium placed on winning (I can't say that word anymore without blanching at a vision of Charlie Sheen or Donald Trump with shit-eating grins, examples of "winning" promoters par excellence). As long as the spoils go to the winner, all this will continue. Society should instead reward a combination of performance and integrity, and society must severely punish those who cheat.

We have a sign-stealing cheating scandal in Major League Baseball (MLB). Although the system of hand signals seems archaic to many, whatever might be devised to replace it will also be subject to fraudulent attempts at "winning" (I wonder, for a system where cheating was the primary goal, if attempting to win by not cheating would be looked upon askance ... or would this just be another form of cheating?). The standard responses by league officials have included a range of actions, many of which ultimately result with an asterisk being added to the record. Should the "winners" of the 2017 and 2018 World Series be subject to harsh penalties for cheating? Absolutely. Should the next team in line be declared the "new winner?" Absolutely not, since this action would also result in an asterisk being added. It is impossible to determine what the outcomes would have been along the way to the final series. The alleged 2018 cheaters, the Boston Red Sox, beat the 2017 cheaters, the Houston Astros: did both teams cheat? Would Houston need to vacate the 2017 title but be awarded the 2018 title? and what about the teams that lost to these cheating teams in the divisional series, or anywhere in the playoffs or regular season? What do they get?

I can commiserate with the LA Dodgers, which is a difficult thing to do for a lifelong San Francisco Giant fan, since LA "lost" both the 2017 and 2018 World Series. But the record books will show, barring any other evidence of cheating uncovered, no asterisk next to their season and, I would hope, no listing of the two cheating teams other than a foot note of shame. It is also not enough to punish just the teams, since it was the players who ultimately cheated. At a minimum, the 2017 and 2018 playoffs records of all team members should be expunged, as if they never played those games, and an asterisk should be placed by their names. I see the shunning of Barry Bonds as necessary and his performance needs to be assessed and appropriately labeled by seasons with and without steroids. His story should be part of baseball history, as should stories for all those who cheated, but titles and awards must be expunged or at least have that asterisk added. For individual records there would still be a problem of awarding the top position to the next in line, but this problem is far less questionable than taking a similar action for a team's performance over a full season. So, I'm sorry LA, but you should not have the World Series championship titles for those two years, but you still can claim that you were the best team in baseball for those two years, and that should be more important than "winning."

"It's a no brainer to expand CEQA exceptions for ..." says an LA Times editorial today (19 Jan 2020). I'm not sure if this expression means 'no brain is needed' or 'no brain was used' in the decision. In this case, the LA Times is referring to expediting homeless housing projects statewide (I guess we've run out of professional sports arenas as reasons to justify changing CEQA). But AB 1907 goes beyond housing for the homeless and would apply to any housing for low-income renters, something that did not fly with AB 50 last year. I do not support the overly obstructionist elements of CEQA, but I also do not support policy via exemptions, even with a sunset date, rather than a restructuring of the basic objectives of CEQA. It is also important to address social issues such as homelessness by focusing on the causes and not just the results. This applies even more with low-income housing. I think that such an approach would be a no brainer.

Government has often subsidized options that have other than direct and equitable benefits to the general public. Public transit comes to mind, justified for the greater good, the same justification that should apply for EVs. Reducing carbon emissions will benefit the planet, and this means reducing the burning of fossil fuels (burned by both surface and air transport). Assistance is needed to jump start the wide-spread adoption of EVs as a major part of the vehicle fleet, whether it be purchase subsidies, tax advantages, or not applying penalties for not paying fuel taxes. SB1 imposes a fee on EV and FCV vehicles effective in July 2020. exempting vehicles with model years before 2020, which apparently totals $32 million per year. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes SB1 for equity reasons (apparently they're good with the inequitable distribution of emissions along freeways which have a disproportionate effect on working-class Californians). Many people cannot afford EVs because production and deployment have not achieved economies of scale that would decrease price, economies that can be realized only if government continues to support EV deployment, however possible. I do not agree with the grandfather clause, in fact, I'd rather see a grandchild clause that applies to new EVs joining the fleet.

The definition of liberal thinking is being open to new ideas while a conservative perspective exhibits caution regarding new ideas. Neither of these terms should be limited to a political party perspective. In fact, a political conservative may be open to new ideas but tend toward the status quo until a new idea can be shown to stand the test of time and effectiveness. In a similar manner, a political liberal may be open to and even embrace a new idea prior to fully thinking through manifold implications. Both perspectives involve forming and holding opinions, with the unstated and often incorrect belief that these opinions are well-founded and not just party preferences, gut reactions, or misinterpretations, or worse yet, based on ulterior, often self-serving motives. The degree to which one has formally developed opinions based on evidence and thought can be established through the depth of knowledge of an opinion's ramifications.

There is much between a well-reasoned opinion and an off-the-cuff comment but in the age of sound bites (bytes) any retort can be repeated ad infinitum to falsely provide an air of correctness. Such behavior is unfortunately common, which is precisely why a questioning press is critically important to democracy, and also why anyone that criticizes the press without providing factual counter evidence is either ignorant or intentionally deceptive, which in either case should disqualify them from public service. But are voters open?

An LA Times editorial (15 January 2020) addresses "Metro's bus ridership problem." They offer that "slow, unreliable, uncomfortable buses" are a big reason why transit ridership is down 25 percent over the last decade despite LA County voters having approved several sales tax initiatives to "help get people out of polluting cars and into a sustainable, modern urban transportation system." No system is sustainable unless it can balance supply and demand with resource constraints. The culprit in transportation is neither "slow buses" nor "polluting cars" but unconstrained growth.

LA sprawl is product of transit development in an era before automobiles. But for the last century, transit declined and was replaced by a dense highway network and privately owned vehicles. For decades, this was a "world-class transportation system." Uncontrolled land development fed by rising incomes slowly eroded this system, even as transit ridership increased with significant increases in public support. Until the Great Recession. It seems that recession impacts were more significant for transit users, since ridership fell by as much as 40 percent in domestic cities. While automobile sales quickly recovered, transit ridership never did.

There are real problems with bus transit in LA, including disproportionate funding of rail lines and buses operating in mixed flow traffic and thus subject to increasing automobile congestion. The editorial does identify improvements that could help, such as more reliable service, bus-only lanes, and more comfortable bus stops, but it doesn't identify viable ways to achieve these changes. "World-class" public transit may be a regional vision but it is not a field of dreams: if you build it, don't expect them to come. No matter how much you improve transit systems, unless you degrade the preferred mode, cars, you will not achieve your objectives. An example is bus-only lanes where a lane is taken away from cars to get better bus performance, at least along the corridor in question. However, there is still the first and last mile access problem, spillover of vehicle traffic displaced by the bus lanes onto parallel arterials, and likely degradation of intersection performance due to changes in lane volumes and turning movements. It is ironic that favoring bus systems over highway modes may well reflect the primary concern: declining automobile accessibility may become the real deterrent to increased congestion as jobs and people move elsewhere.

The hukou system has provided Chinese policymakers with a means to regulate the movement of people to achieve national objectives and the twin goals of farm collectivization and rapid industrialization. The yin-yang of the Chinese socialist economy may not be that different from the American public-private sector system. In both cases, too great a reliance on the invisible hand of free markets can distort individual liberties, equity, public health, and the environment, but too much oversite and regulation on government's part can thwart innovation and, thus, produce the same downsides as for too little government innovation. Balance in all things.

"Is Betelgeuse about to go supernova?" is the headline in The Week (17 Jan 2020). Most people are more familiar with Beetlejuice than with this red supergiant. Even this article refers to the star as the right shoulder of the constellation Orion but it's the left from our viewpoint. The star has been dimming significantly since last October suggesting it might go supernova, sometime between now and about 100,000 years. Why my interest? In my 9th grade Earth Science class, Gary McGohan and I froze our butts in snowy fields night after night measuring azimuth and altitude for as many stars as we could. Betelgeuse and Rigel are extremely bright but more importantly they are part of perhaps the most recognizable of constellations, Orion, which happens to be mentioned in Roy Batty's death soliloquy from Blade Runner: "Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion." For Betelgeuse, soon in astronomical terms, and for us probably even sooner, from Batty's last words, "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Update: The BBC (16 June 2021) reports that the cause of the dimming was likely a giant dust cloud ejected from the star.

My favorite Neil Peart lyrics (chorus of Ghost of a Chance from Roll the Bones (1991):

I don't believe in destiny, Or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever, Or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets, Or angels watching from above
But I believe there's a ghost of a chance, We can find someone to love
And make it last

An escalating litany of tit for tat actions has led to the death of 176 innocent people. I can't trace the first few steps, but the last few are clear. The U.S. responds to the death of an American contractor by Irani-supported militia in Iraq with a counter-attack on these militias, which incites Iraqi citizen demonstrations and violence at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This pisses off Trump who over-reacts and selects what, in at least hindsight, was not the best option: taking out Iranian General Soliemani with a drone strike. Iran must respond, to save political and military face, and launches a missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq.

There were no casualties, at first. My immediate personal thought was: fortunately there was an adult in the room; unfortunately, that room was in Iran. Did Iran launch an attack and intentionally miss causing any real damage? Were their response capabilities that good? Perhaps. However, in the heightened state of fear on both sides of a high-stakes pissing contest, a passenger plane taking off from Tehran Airport was unintentionally shot down by Irani missiles just hours after their missile attack. Facing overwhelming evidence, Iran admitted so, claiming human error but associating blame on "U.S. adventurism in the region."

Say what you want about what should have been done at any step. But none of the steps that were taken needed to be taken, and particularly the drone strike on Soliemani. Information also suggest that the U.S. planned two separate drone strikes to terminate Irani figures, suggesting that the claimed imminent threat was nothing more than cover for a brash, gut over-reaction by our President.

The LA Times (10 Jan 2020) reported two actions resulting from AB 5, the so-called gig economy law that took effect this month and imposes regulations on what constitutes an employee versus a consultant (or gig worker). A California judge has ruled that, due to a 1994 Federal regulation on interstate commerce, AB5 does not apply to independent truck drivers. Also prompted by AB5, Uber has changed its app to provide a pricing range for users, as well as a few other changes that affect both users and drivers. Many of those impacted by AB5 seem to comprise a new category of employment: workers who are neither conventional employees nor conventional independent consultants. As such, AB5 is not a well-defined piece of legislation. Like 2008's SB375, the impacts of AB5 may not be known for some time. Both bills, as formal policy, were poorly envisioned, but both will have much needed ramifications if we let them evolve over time.

Neil Peart, Rush drummer and lyricist, passed away on January 7th. While not particularly a Rush fan, nor a drummer, I thought that Peart's lyrics were often excellent. From 1982's Subdivisions, a rare rock paean to unfortunate land use and location decisions: "Any escape might help to smooth, The unattractive truth, But the suburbs have no charms to soothe, The restless dreams of youth." This alienation appears often such as in 1984's Distant Early Warning "An ill wind comes arising, Across the cities of the plain, There's no swimming in the heavy water, No singing in the acid rain." Many have written about cars, roads, trains, and other forms of leaving but some of Peart's best lyrics reflected yearnings of people stuck in space, and now frozen in time.

"It has been said that monorail technology will always be the future of transportation." A monorail system between Frederick and Montgomery counties in Maryland has been proposed as an alternative to adding road capacity to relieve congestion on a 28-mile stretch of Interstate 270 (with a preliminary cost estimate of $3.4 billion). The alternative of adding toll lanes is estimated to cost about $11 billion.

Despite the existence of 20 or so monorail systems in the United States, only three are operating in urban environments (each less than 4 miles in length) with the other systems in airports or amusement parks. Monorails are often confused with other grade-separated systems. A monorail system, as the name implies, has one rail that serves for guidance, traction, and physical support (from above or below). The nature of monorail technology is such that these systems are always grade-separated; however, any transit system, or any roadway system, can be grade separated.

There have recent monorail systems built in other countries, including several in China. However, there are problems with adding grade-separated systems in existing freeway right-of-way, including negotiating frequent roadway overcrossings and numerous access problems for stations located in freeway medians. Although I support alternatives to adding more lanes (especially tolled lanes), monorail systems simply do not have a proven track record and deserve to be only a starting point for planning, or only a permanent future vision.

Can it be the case that Trump is a man who appears to be "so complicated that only a profound man would know him to be simple?" Jonah Goldberg, a true conservative but very much not a Trump supporter, has slowly but surely come to conclusions quite similar to mine. Goldberg focuses on the key word "moment." Trump lives in the moment (read Goldberg's LA Times (7 Jan 2020) column for an excellent and comprehensive OpEd). This is precisely what I meant by referring to Trump's mantra as being Me, Now.

This "Me/Now" presidency is brought to us/US by the letter "I" since "Me/Now" is being Impeached due to an utter lack of Integrity as he moves the country toward armed conflict with Iran due to a lack of Intelligence (his lack of personal intelligence, not a lack in U.S. intelligent services), justified by Imminent threats to American security when it's actually Imminent threats to his Presidency that motivates him.

In response to questions regarding the recent "termination" of Irani General Suleimani, a state department spoke person said "Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?" The answer is, of course, yes, according to congressional Democrats, human rights groups, European allies, and me, as well as to anyone with at least a modicum of care about the world. And, as a spokesperson, isn't that your job?

Schools used to teach you how to read a newspaper (I assume, like cursive writing, such skills are no longer relevant). One basic fact was that the deeper you read into an article, the more detailed the information became, but the details were generally less important. It was with a bit of surprise when I eventually made it to the end of the annoying OpEd by Scott Jennings in today's LA Times (5 January 2020) that I found the most important information as the last line. Jennings, a frequent, rational, conservative contributor on CNN, asks how have the Democrats become "so radicalized as to present no viable alternative to huge swaths of nonurban America?"

The same question could be asked of Jennings relative to Republicans in 2016, since Trump much more than any other GOP candidate was unacceptable to huge swaths of metropolitan America (I use metropolitan to emphasize the urban and suburban nature of blue America). Trump may have been the one candidate that neither the Republican Party nor blue America wanted, perhaps even more than not wanting Hilary Clinton. The eroding status quo of what is normal will continue whether Trump or one of the currently leading Democrats wins in 2020. Only here at the end can I agree with Jennings, for I can agree with almost no other part of his OpEd.

He starts with two trains (not the Lowell George song), neither heading to the desired destination but one getting you closer. Jennings refers to the other as going in precisely the wrong direction (I'll leave it up to others to infer any meaning from his choice of cities) clouding the important point that there are actually many important issues representing many choices. I think that it was lost on Jennings that the two trains metaphor may be appropriate for the current state of affairs with our broken political party system by oddly juxtaposing outdated myopic and binary politics with an aging mobility technology. Make America Great Again, indeed.

Jennings also succumbs to GOP talking points in excusing the train conductor as saying "crude and dumb stuff" (this could be endearing if it was not actually biased, ignorant, and amoral "stuff") and implying that everyone on the other side prefers full-term abortions and no national borders. Jennings was above such wrong and stupid comments a year ago but appears to be embracing this approach of late. What we need even more than truth and perspective from our political parties is a level of truth and perspective from our political commentators. C'mon, Scott ... really?

Fake news. Alternative facts. What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening. The Orwellian doublespeak that best characterizes the President and his sycophants is having a real effect on society in general. While there's always been many people indoctrinated into a rigid belief system, whether it be family, religion, or social groups, this has been exacerbated, first by the growing ubiquity of social media and second by the Tweeter-in-chief himself. The root problem is that relying on a belief system is easier than listening and critical thinking, especially as our worlds grow in complexity. It is in such times that the need for leaders who exercise critical thinking and appeal to the greater good becomes clear to move people beyond the first two stages of grief, denial and anger, and move on to bargaining. Eliminating political parties as we know them today would be a positive but unrealistic step. Implementing term limits might be the best step toward accountability and rejections of doublespeak and personal gain in politics.

In a letter in the LA Times (3 January 2020) worthy of James Thurber, another Thurber addresses the recent closing of the I-5 Grapevine due to snow. As someone who spent the first part of his life in upstate New York, the idea of closing a road due to a little snow is strange; as someone who spent the second portion of his life among SoCal drivers, I'm not at all surprised. I am a bit surprised with this Thurber's Mittyesque suggestion to tunnel. "Why not call the Swiss?" Thurber asks, stating that we could "have a tunnel completed in no time. Think of the possibilities -- 12 lanes, six in each direction, running from the central valley ... and into the Southland."

Sounds a bit like Judge Doom in Roger Rabbit: "Eight lanes of shimmering cement running from here to Pasadena. Smooth, safe, fast. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past." But I digress. The most recent Swiss tunnel, which took 17 years to build and cost more than $12 billion, is 10 meters in diameter, a circular bore as with all tunnels excavated with modern tunnel boring machines. Such a tunnel could accommodate at best three lanes, so Thurber's solution of six lanes in each direction would require four such tunnels. Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel was recently excavated as a 50 foot diameter tunnel able to accommodate four lanes, stacked two and two, so three of these tunnels would be needed for the Grapevine. The 35 mile Swiss rail tunnel cost $12 billion and the Seattle tunnel cost over $3 billion for only two miles. I'll let you do the math but I think that Thurber's idea is in the running for a sixth Walter Mitty daydream.

The tag line for the National Shared Mobility Summit (March 17-19, 2020 in Chicago):

"What if we could reverse transportation inequity; cut carbon emissions to reduce the impact of climate change; rethink land use and integrate technology, policy, and action to change modes and minds? What if we could create mobility for all? We can."

In today's LA Times, Emily Baumgaertner gives us "In 2019, I resolved to be more organized." I read it solely because it wasn't entitled "In 2020, I resolve to ..." and thus expecting that this would not be a paean to more efficient over-achievement and obsessive-compulsive behaviors, in general, and to New Year's resolutions in particular. I do suspect that more people than just Baumgaertner will be reviewing and/or revising resolutions that would deal with time management in the new year. But I was a bit surprised.

First, I found it interesting that many borderline (?) obsessive efficiency junkies appear to have migrated away from online planner/schedulers to pen-and-paper alternatives. I do not find it surprising that the people who are most active seeking better time management systems are those who are already more active successfully juggling multiple tasks. I'd also never expect any such system to turn a couch potato into a go-getter, but I think that there's also a difference between people who are active goal setters on micro- versus macro-scales. My somewhat limited experience is that many active people with big "bucket list" objectives don't sweat the small stuff (and thus don't burn out doing so) and appear generally more happy. Most of the time. And studies have suggested that GPS-based way-finding apps result in spatial skills either never being developed or being lost (including atrophy of the brain-area dedicated to spatial perception). Would over reliance on scheduling systems have a similar result?

Full disclosure: I use a pen-and-paper planner that places a full month on a two page spread but most certainly does not provide hour by hour time management options. This works for me for two reasons: first, I do not use a cell phone so I do not have the option of an online version and, second, the act of writing down an event on paper also inscribes it in my memory. I don't usually look at my schedule to see what I have to do, only to schedule something of importance or something occurring more than a week later.

These pen-and-paper scheduling systems, such as adopted in 2019 by the author, can be expensive since one is really buying an analog time management system plus digital online support, so it's not really a pure pen-and-paper option. That didn't surprise me, so what did? About halfway thru the year, Baumgaertner seemed to be concluding that the method to control her time management obsession was itself becoming an obsession. I visualized a parallel to a "get in shape" objective that turns into a lifestyle obsession (unlike most people whose similar objective turns into a wasted gym membership). She contacted other "members of the tribe" such as a yoga instructor who used the system, together with essential oils of course, to manage the things she didn't like so as to focus more on the things that she did like. There are different ways to self-motivate, and for some these include essential oils, a planner, exercise, or whatever gets you moving toward goals in a manner more effective and/or more efficient than not using these tools. And this gets me to my point. The much more important issue is how we form our goals and objectives, not how we achieve them. A "Pearls before Swine" meme has Pig aiming low to make his goal achievable, which is not really any different than the author dedicating money and time to do the same, since no one is really judging you ... unless, of course, your goal is to be favorably judged by others. In any case, the means should never justify the ends.

The expression "backbone" is used as a symbol of strength in providing structural support to more important system elements. But what good is a backbone if that is all you have? No legs to provide mobility, no arms with which to reach, and no head to plan, manage, and control?

This is the fundamental error made by Lee Ann Eager, president and chief executive of the Fresno County Economic Development Corporation. In a letter to the LA Times (31 December 2019) Eager is unjustifiably eager to assign backbone status to the current development of high speed rail in California's central valley. Of course Eager, her organization, and Fresno County wants this economic investment, but does this make sense for the State of California, or for the federal government, who may be on the hook for this increasingly expensive project? No, it does not.

It is becoming increasing likely that the legs, arms, and head of the planned system will never be developed, meaning the vast majority of California's population and jobs, in both southern California and in the bay area, will not be connected to the backbone (a dark version of a child's nursery rhyme comes to mind). Eager eagerly contributes arguments that make no more sense than starting in the middle:

1. The state, not the federal government, proposed starting in the middle, an act that likely made Robert Moses smile in his grave.
2. The major contributor to poor air quality in the central value is farming and the associated truck traffic, and not the pass-through automobile traffic which could be accommodated by high speed rail.
3. Pouring state and federal money into any construction enterprise will generate local jobs. This would be true whether this project was focused in southern California, the Bay Area, or the central valley. This would be true for any investment, not just one in high speed rail, or in transportation in general, or any other public project such as environmental remediation. The economic value of these jobs is actually a project cost for all California residents and businesses.

The economic impacts to the central valley are irrelevant if the project's "backbone" is all that is ever built. And the economic demands of this project are such that this initial investment will never generate transportation benefits to justify its already excessive costs.

Talk about the tail wagging the dog. ASCE SmartBrief (26 December 2019) reports that Los Angeles Metro (unsurprisingly) reports that they are "considering new funding models for light-rail projects that could bring in the private sector." Now P3 proposals for roads are bad enough in giving up control over public right of way for private sector profit, but what sort of profit can come from heavily subsidized public transit? Why is this even being considered? To quote from a prior post:

The impetus for the current Metro interest in pricing is "Twenty Eight for '28." Revenues are needed to complete 28 transit projects before the 2028 Olympics. None of us voted for an LA Olympics, few of us will benefit from an LA Olympics, and none of us should have to pay for an LA Olympics.

Metro is considering unrealistic funding for an ill-conceived, overpriced, outdated, fixed route, domestic steel rail transit system (see Odd Behavior ).

The Bureau of Economic Affairs reports that corporate taxes are declining as a share of total federal tax revenue, from 22 percent in 1960, to 9 percent in 2010, to just 3.5 percent (through the end of the third quarter of 2019). Since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, U.S. corporations have become key players in federal campaigns, with their influence in governance increasing as their contribution to the federal budget steadily declines. Will we soon see the logos of the top 50 corporations replacing the stars on the flag of the United Corporations of America?

In My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Gus Portokalos used Windex as a cure all. We could all use a product designed (appropriately) to increase transparency in today's "don't believe what you see or hear world." When a politician says something, just spray a little Windex to clarify things.

The capture of taxi market share by ride hailing service has accelerated over the decade since Uber launched operations. Ideally, we would have data that allows for meaningful comparisons but this disruptive innovation has occurred so rapidly that little data exists. For example, no ride hailing existed in the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and in the 2017 NHTS ride hailing was combined with conventional taxi. These modes are very similar in that each provides on-demand, single party, door-to-door service. The major differences are the app-based access provided by ride hailing services (it's hard to believe that taxi operations have not successfully emulated this), an advantage which strongly influences service choice in the cell phone era, and the fact that arguably albeit marginally superior ride hailing is significantly subsidized while taxi is not. The result is the slow replacement of taxi by ride hailing, an evolution of sorts that can be seen as common in public transit technologies for (at least) two centuries.

The GOP argues that impeachment is an attempt to overturn the voting preferences of 74 million Americans. What about the 81 million Americans that did not vote for Donald Trump? These items are closely related in that each is fully explained by our Constitution. While Trump didn't win the popular vote, the Republican talking point (it is not an argument) suggests that, given the vote, an impeachment would be unconstitutional. Trump won the 2016 election precisely because the Constitution states that it is the electoral college that determines the winner, and that was Donald Trump. This, however, was explicitly NOT the wish of the American people, most of whom voted against Trump. And just as the electoral college is explicitly constitutional, so is impeachment. Both items were included by the founders for well understood reasons. The rationale for the electoral college, difficult for many to accept since it runs contrary to a fundamental concept of democracy -- "one person, one vote" -- was necessary for the constitution to be ratified in 1789. The rationale for impeachment was part of the separation of powers to help ensure balance between the three branches of government and in response to real fears of the founders of foreign influence in domestic affairs, including interference in our elections. Which ever side you're on, Trump won the 2016 election legitimately, despite receiving a minority of the popular vote, and the House is in the process of legitimately impeaching Trump for violating his oath of office, oddly, in respect to inviting foreign influence in presidential elections. Not really a quid pro quo, but minimally some poetic justice?

American blues has broad origins as well as broad interpretations, representing music that for me partially resonates as resignation that "it is what it is ..." In Portuguese, saudade is a longing that remains for something that may never return, "... 'til it ain't."

... where your mouth is. I've drawn two conclusions from events of the last few years. The consummate conman, as expected, will maintain the con at all costs. The con's sycophants must be in on the con otherwise they would not risk sacrificing everything else. To all of these parties, exposure of the con is the worst case scenario, so all other behaviors are better for the end game. The opening adage, ironically, still applies.

The last decade has focused on the technology challenge of making a driverless car perform in a manner indistinguishable from an experienced human driver. While it does not appear that any formal Turing Test has been performed, and certainly not a rigorous one that has been passed, Patrick McGee argues in the LA Times ("Driverless cars' bigger challenge", 1 Dec 2019) that a new and more important challenge is at hand: commercialization. Commercialization will require "government approval, public trust, brand marketing, the ability to manufacture at scale, and the technological know-how to manage a fleet:" all the aspects of a consumer service business.

A Turing Test would be appropriate for the first level engineering challenge, but a second level and more important test is that for a viable consumer service business. After all, ride hailing firms such as Uber and Lyft, using conventional vehicles and drivers, would obviously meet the standard for the engineering Turing Test but they remain in operations due to venture capital and not as a viable business model, despite meeting most of the commercialization challenges expressed above. In 2016 Uber's Travis Kalanick existential premise was (and remains) eliminating "two thirds of the cost equation -- the driver." While Autonomous vehicles may be the missing link, no one seems ready to cost out a replacement fleet for ride hailing drivers and their vehicles in terms of capital and operational costs.

At an even higher third level, ride hailing is replacing taxi service with an arguably more convenient and arguably less expensive service. Unlike autonomous vehicles, a service with human drivers may be one that can respond to daily demand fluctuations. Real transportation problems, however, such as emissions, congestion, and safety, are still not being addressed.

Rob Nikolewski reports in the LA Times (1 Dec 2019) that California is inching toward its ZEV goals. Overall registrations for Light Duty Vehicles (cars, pick-ups, and SUVs) dropped 5.1 percent in the first 9 months of 2019, but electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid sales increased to 7.9 percent in combined market share. Adding in non-plug-in hybrids yields a combined 13.4 percent market share for the third quarter of 2019. The article provides some interesting data:

1. There were 655,088 ZEVs registered in California after nine months in 2019, following a 30 percent increase from 2017 to 2018 and 34 percent from 2018 to 2019. This does not seem to be a sign that the goal of 5 million ZEVs by 2030 will be met, despite having over 21,000 charging stations statewide.
2. The Transport sector is responsible for 41 percent of GHG emissions statewide.
3. Total estimated vehicle sales of 1.9 million in 2019 would be the first year in five with less than 2 million vehicle sales. Average new car price is $37,000, a 10 percent increase in three years. Light truck sales are up while overall car sales are down nationwide almost 10 percent.

Southern California is facing a choice with a housing plan that is pushing the coast over inland. For the housing location dichotomy proposed, a research question involves the relative impact of building less dense housing in outlying areas (the inland option) on cheaper land but likely producing longer commutes, or building dense housing in developed areas (the so-called coast, although none will be on the actual coast) where congestion is already extensive in both spatial and temporal dimensions. The argument against building in cheaper outlying areas is not just the induced commuting but the reinforcement of a low density, auto-dependent suburban life style. But what if jobs are forced to locate where housing is to be built, rather than forcing housing construction where jobs already are? Hmmm.

There's an evolution being forced in the coastal option, one that will transform land development from a density level that just barely accommodates preferred travel options (predominantly car) to a much higher density that is unfortunately not dense enough to realistically accommodate public transit services. The result will be continued traffic growth in developed areas (which would also be the case under the inland option if commuting to the coast was the primary job location). And you thought today's congestion was bad.

But, and this is a very big but, has any level of congestion ever got that bad? Has Armageddon ever actually been realized? Anywhere? In a word, no, because people and jobs are mobile and these key drivers of development will re-locate to avoid bad planning decisions relative to housing, traffic, and other land use, public policy, and resource concerns. The most flexible of these relocations would involve higher income people and better paying jobs, that would seek out regions that do a better job controlling growth and providing public services. Housing is not a single issue. It is inherently part of the entire urban fabric, a fabric that appears is being sewn by planners and policy makers whose vision exceeds their reach.

"Metro needs to make transit habit-forming" writes Wendy Wood (LAT 29 Nov 2019). LA Metro is spending $7 billion per year and still transit ridership is declining. "Los Angeles is generally progressive in approaching politics and life, and outsiders puzzle why we persist in driving." If by outsiders Wood means those few, and fewer each day, travelers who have a travel choice and choose transit then, yes, I'm sure they are quite puzzled. These travelers, like Wood, who states her "hatred of local traffic" but only her concern about "air quality and climate change," simply cannot tolerate automobiles, or at least driving one in demanding traffic environments. But most people, comprising over 95 percent of all travel outside of a few major domestic cities, drive or ride in cars, or walk or bike where possible, yet usually support transit for "everyone else." They are not "puzzled."

The bottom line is that the excessive and stressful conditions that reach a level that drives (no pun intended) a few people from cars to transit are not fundamentally different from the excessive delay and loss of personal autonomy that keeps most people in cars and away from transit. Wood's point is that "too few Angelenos have formed the transit habit despite traffic being a nightmare." And my point is that traffic clearly is either not nightmarish enough, or the transit alternative is believed to be a nightmare in and of itself. As Wood states, habits form from repetition and reward. While she clearly knows more about habit (but likely less about travel behavior) than I do, I bet the term 'reward' should be placed first before 'repetition.' These last three statements nicely summarize her professed problem: transit does not provide suitable reward to repeat, while driving does, either directly or indirectly.

Driving provides most people with a reward that more than compensates for the negative aspects of driving. Once you're in your car, you're essentially already home in an internal environment that you control but you still need to negotiate the external environment (the thing that some people, such as the author, won't or can't do). With transit, it's reversed: you don't need to worry much about the external environment (other than where to board, transfer, and exit vehicles, something that habit will quickly accommodate) but you have little control over the internal environment (more so on buses, while rail, especially commuter rail, provides a higher level of comfort and utility, albeit at a cost). Wood concludes that drivers "overestimate their safety and overlook the dangers of driving." I'm sure some (perhaps even many) drivers do, but not most, and especially not those who grew into a driving habit (and I'm sure a similar conclusion applies to transit users who grew up in areas well-served by transit). I think that the author sees the situation, too some degree, as I do, but then that slippery slope takes over. "One way to control driving habits is by adding 'friction'."

It may be hard to believe that I was the one who received a masters from a socio-engineering program, but when authorities reach a point where sticks and not carrots appear to be the only strategy, then we probably have much larger problems than the one that they're shaking the stick at. Such strategies have been applied to public health issues such as smoking, drugs, and obesity (in declining levels of effort and success) but, unlike driving, most people have not been engaged in these activities.

Wood rightly addresses a range of Metro service problems: these should be addressed but by themselves such action will do little to encourage others to break the driving habit and take transit. The basic problem is that one must bear with likely decades of poor service while the transit system grows. And scarce resources for public transit will only flow from continued growth, which will make road traffic worse immediately while leaving transit users, and drivers, with little to do but complain.

Bad news and good news: California's transport-related emissions have increased in recent years, but the state now appears aware that trucks and buses, while only 7 percent of vehicle fleet, contribute 20 percent of greenhouse gas and 40 percent of smog-forming emissions. Legislation has been proposed to require that 20 perecent of new large trucks be zero emission vehicles (ZEV) by 2030, a very good thing, but the state still fails to accept that growth in freight and population is the real culprit (LA Times (28 Nov 2019) "California needs clean trucks").

So, Trump is implicating Giuliani to protect himself? Of course, this would be no surprise to anyone. Trump convinces Rudy to take the fall, then pardons him, and they all live happily ever after. But this Great Charade (#GreatCharade) will likely collapse under its own weight. Trump's hoaxes, witch hunts, and fake news may all be self-references but his continuous verbal diarrhea is having it's intended effect: it's a placebo for the masses, who are facing behaviors and norm revisions that are so unfamiliar that many people will accept virtually any explanation that resolves their cognitive dissonance. Any attempt at rational explanation will, as any rational person understands, fail miserably. Nevertheless ...

If the Ukrainians are so adept at hacking our elections and enjoying the fruits of corruption at an international level, then they are likely equally adept at convincing a new round of marks of the validity of complex conspiracy theories. Alternatively, if one follows Occam's Razor, the Ukrainians are not capable of hacking our elections or spinning conspiracy theories well enough to con most of the GOP and 40 percent of all Americans. So who would be capable of these feats? Look no further than the puppet masters playing the Ukrainian stage: the bear, the eagle, and the master con himself.

Even if Rudy did unilaterally try to dig up dirt on the Bidens, if Trump didn't know then he has no business being President. And Rudy certainly didn't freeze the Ukraine aid or talk to Ukraine's President on that notorious perfect call where Trump instructed the Ukrainians to #TalkToRudy.

Apparently, our amoral President, who has no respect for the law or human dignity, plans to declare drug cartels terrorist groups. On one hand, while the pot may be calling the kettle black, this doesn't mean that the kettle isn't indeed black. On the other hand, what if our southern neighbors declare that the pot is also black?

... have been around for a long time. Peak celebrities show up, pre-announced at a club where they pretend to be a "regular" while in reality they are a paid consultant working the floor the same way, albeit more highly compensated, as other club employees. The club gets the PR and enjoys the financial upswing that follows. Why does this work? You could ask the same of many innovative strategies to get new products and service in to the market place. Uber works because consumers are getting a hell of a deal -- door-to-door on-demand service for a regular price that puts Black Friday sales to shame -- since venture capitalists are funding today's losses for tomorrow's payoffs. When it comes to influencers, we have the entertainment industry selling celebrity news that consumers are all too willing to suck up, with news being funded by advertisers who are also looking for a future payoff. Yes, this sort of dealing has always been around, but not with the disproportionate levels of wealth that inflate this bubble. One may ask if and when this bubble may break.

Years ago I submitted a query to a UC health site regarding how E. coli bacteria populate an infant's gut. It clearly does not come through the placenta so it must come through ingestion, during childbirth or soon after. I was always thought that E. coli stayed in the gut and doesn't migrate north due to acidity or related issues, but somehow, coming from even further north up the alimentary canal via the mouth, they make it through. I clearly have no idea and I haven't been able to find an answer (the UC ask-us-a-question site didn't respond so maybe I'm the only one in the dark).

A second e-coli related question involves the recurring tainting of lettuce and subsequent consumer infections, of particular interest since I need romaine lettuce for Caesar salads (otherwise I'd eat little salad at all). As for my infant question, how can e-coli on our lettuce be such a big problem? Don't people wash their produce before consuming? Well, the LA Times today (27 Nov 2019) reports research results that suggest it's irrigation water that is the contamination source, not necessarily human handling during harvesting and processing. Apparently, E. coli in irrigation water is taken up by plants internally, so washing won't help. An explanation of sorts, but as for infants, not an answer and one would be appreciated, at least by me.

Fast Company provides an interesting factoid about long distance travel:

"Airlines aren't the worst polluters in the world, but planes do account for an incredible 2.5% of the world's carbon emissions. So by any measure, flying is a privilege -- the exact sort of 21st-century excess that we need to reassess."

The U.S. Constitution provides the ground rules for presidential elections (rules that have been amended in the Constitution). The U.S. Constitution also provides the ground rules for presidential impeachment (there has been no amendment of this process since in the three times the process has been initiated it has not yet resulted in a President being removed from office). Complaints that impeachment is an attempt to override the will of the people and the expressed content of our Constitution are simply ridiculous. No impeachment will occur outside the rules established in the Constitution and it is quite unlikely that the will of the people will not be reflected (but then, the will of the people did not result in Clinton winning the 2016 elections). Concerns that this process may result in future presidents being impeached and removed from office should be countered with "of course it might, and should, if future Presidents violate the Constitution." The clear and present danger here is that not impeaching a President who has continually violated laws (and has claimed absolute immunity to all laws) is a direct assault on the our Constitution and on its design on checks and balanced in the division of powers that are central to our system of government.

"How Can Our Dumb Infrastructure Accommodate Smart Cars?" asks Andrea Sullivan at reason.com. The problem is that communication systems do not yet exist between smart cars and the physical environment (well, they do exist when human drivers are in the loop, so by 'smart" they mean 'driverless'). Until communications system policies are established, roadway infrastructure can begin to address the gap. Sullivan refers to the necessary infrastructure as "street furniture" and says this is what "policymakers are slowly but surely coming around to the understanding that emerging technologies will need." When Sullivan rhetorically asks how we can ensure that "our dumb infrastructure gets smart enough in time," one can easily anticipate her response.

"Why not let private businesses take the lead? State and local governments already routinely contract the installation and maintenance of old-school telecommunications infrastructure to private companies" writes Sullivan. And there's the rub. I commend Sullivan for quickly addressing the implied concern of giving public rights to private companies by stating that "granting a little networking fiefdom to a single private company could deprive a community of the benefits of open access, which means our environments would be much dumber than they needed to be." Well, it's a bit more than just interoperability, the absence of which would be a real cost to the private sector. It's the statement that "under policy-induced competition, governments would solicit bids for companies to install, maintain, and profit from certain kinds of smart infrastructure." The objectionable word is profit. Under most current public and private interactions, ownership of the resulting infrastructure remains public and any profits that accrue roll back into the system and not to corporate shareholders. Simply stated, operating costs will be less if there is not profit taken out of the system. This, of course, is a basic tenet of public-private partnerships: the public sector takes the risk while the private sector gets a perpetual cash flow (sort of like an unused gym membership). It becomes clear that the developers of smart cars are counting on the providers of dumb roads to be equally dumb to follow this path.

In The Elements of Eloquence, Mark Forsyth wrote:

"Adjectives in English absolutely have to be in this order: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest you'll sound like a maniac. It's an odd thing that every English speaker uses that list, but almost none of us could write it out."

Some things are black and white. Most things are not. The binary vision of many people, including many in planning and policy arenas, is troubling. The LA Times has also fallen into this binary code, but not on this particular Monday. First, in an Editorial, the LA Times calls for "second best" and alternative quick response approaches to addressing homelessness. Yes, long term solutions are needed but that should not get in the way of immediately helping people in need. Whether it be parking lots for the homeless with cars, tiny houses, or emergency-response type dwellings (this is most certainly an emergency), these are strategies that need to be tried, while keeping our vision firmly on addressing housing, healthcare, and jobs for the homeless. Second, an OpEd by John Tirman entitled "A third way for Uber drivers" explicitly addresses the question of whether gig workers are employees or contractors. The answer is both and neither. The details are in the OpEd but the point is here: it's not a binary choice, nor is the resolution for homeless to either force the construction of expensive housing or simply ignore the problem. Nice to see some sanity this Monday.

A cynical letter writer to the LA Times writes that presidents will come and go but only the stock market really matters, adding that, if the market is doing well, he'd be perfectly happy with even Bugs Bunny running the country. Perhaps your favorite rodent hopes the stock market closes at a record high the day you die, but I wonder if even your broker will miss you?

The alumni association of my alma mater and employer, the University of California Irvine, has been proudly announcing the emerging prominence of this relatively new (1964) institution, considered as a "Public Ivy" and the youngest university to be granted membership in the Association of American Universities. UCI was ranked as one of the top ten public universities by US News, and Money magazine proclaimed UCI the No. 1 college in the country for 2019-20. UCI was also named No. 1 in the nation and second overall in Sierra magazine's 2019 "Cool Schools" and Forbes named UCI No. 1 among America's public universities for best value. What does all this mean? Well, I'm not a fan of rankings, awards, and other symbols of achievement, but in a world where every other institution is flaunting successes, it's difficult to not do the same. There is an inherent flaw, however, in participating in such ranking systems since, like SAT and ACT scores, they become "sticks" for measuring success but also for setting policy for future growth. These are not measures of "good," but only measures of relative success. One would think that a prominent campus with an esteemed faculty could create some better way to judge how well the campus is really doing relative to the future happiness and success of faculty, students, and society as a whole. Maybe I should take a motorcycle road trip and think about how to define and measure quality ...

What can be more frustrating that heating some leftovers in a microwave and after standing there for thirty seconds discovering that your meal to be is not yet warm? This is just another sign of the increasing rapidity of daily life and the growing impatience with ephemeral tasks, many of which used to give life some meaning. Let's hope that metal and microwaves is not analogous with mettle and life.

Californians fleeing the state to greener pastures are apparently seeing few welcome mats, despite the fact that California has been the historical destination of domestic migrants since long before the Mother Road provided a path to the Golden State for desperate depression migrants. But even here in liberal diverse communities facing growth, one hears "my view's disappearing," ignorant of the fact that their house with a view took away someone else's view just a short time before.

What stokes my interests, however, is a common theme of Californians "moving in" but not "melting in." This is a phenomena that has been present throughout domestic history (and I'm sure everywhere else) but has become pronounced in the current administration's attack on "murders and rapists" from "shithole" countries. There has always been an expectation that migrants are coming to a new home because they have already anticipated and embraced a new way of life, but naysayers without justification claim that this is no longer the case. The origin of our great melting pot meme has always been "pour in the most diverse of ingredients and out comes American Pie." Whichever way this ends up, will one side soon be singing "This will be the day that we die?"

Software-based tech companies such as Google and Facebook provide search and social media services for free, sort of. Users provide their personal data in return for these services, and this data becomes a corporate Rosetta Stone that leads to huge advertising revenues. But what about those tech companies that depend on hard technologies, such as ride hailing, micro-mobility, and delivery services that are app-based but require hardware -- actual vehicles -- to function? Is there a business model comparable to the soft approach? Can personal data lead to profits? Are there opportunities to leverage advertising? Can they provide these services for free, or at least at a loss, and rely on auxiliary revenue for profit? My guess to these questions is no. The marginal cost of additional Google or Facebook users is effectively zero, yielding only profit, while the marginal hard costs of additional transportation services are real and virtually impossible to reduce significantly. Eliminating labor costs through automation can address some of these costs, but the initial capital investment and ongoing costs to maintain vehicle fleets will at best severely constrain the potential for profit.

Michael Hilt writes in the LA Times (10 November 2019) about the "inane attack on lightbulb rules" by the current administration. In all the other inanity, you may not have noticed the phasing out of the incandescent bulb with, first, compact fluorescent bulbs (in my humble opinion, a very bad transition) and, then, with LED bulbs. In parallel to Trump's other energy strategies involving fossil fuels, which have ignored all common sense, Trump has railed that CFC bulbs make him look orange (hey, at least he noticed) and Trumpers claim that, despite recognized benefits in economics, public welfare, and health outweighing initial costs, allowing government (starting with Bush, not Obama) to impose lightbulb constraints somehow limits individual freedom of choice. An analysis by the Department of Energy showed that new lightbulb rules will save consumers "more than $2 trillion in utility bills through 2030 and reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas that promotes climate change by 700 million metric tons" (maybe that's why Trump and his fossil fuel friends are against this).

What does this mean for transportation? Well, the reduction in emissions is equivalent to taking nearly 150 million cars off the road for a year (and an amount equivalent to the electricity needs of every American household for one year). We are bombarded by the claim that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary contributor to climate change. Primary, yes, but still only about a third of the total emissions. But throwing out the baby with the bath water is not good policy, especially when there are many alternatives with similar benefits and much lower costs. Simply replacing our lightbulbs, or reducing food waste (eliminating the 40 percent of food produced has a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is equivalent to 37 million cars), appear to be better places to start changing behavior.

Quid pro quo? Although he may have difficulty saying it, has our President ever done anything, in personal, professional, or public life, that was not quid pro quo?

The dominance of pure physical strength was long ago replaced with control of physical power through wealth and knowledge (real or perceived). It should be no surprise that the weapons of that physical dominance, from maces to missiles, would at some point be replaced by weapons of influence and money. Although, as no less than Fonzi once said, in response to how does one develop the reputation of fear through strength, "at some point you actually have to hit someone."

In an LA Times opinion column today (7 November 2019), Janelle Wong makes an interesting point. Referring to the all too frequently held belief that Asian American students are naturally better at taking tests or work harder than everyone else, she offers the better explanation of hyper-selectivity for Chinese and Indian students who arguably have shown the highest academic achievement. Immigration policies have favored those immigrants with higher education levels than non-immigrants and, in fact, average domestic students. While "less than 10 percent of those in China have a college degree, ... more than 50 percent of Chinese immigrants have a college degree." It has been frequently shown that the strongest correlation of SAT and ACT scores are with parental education and family income. What is not commonly discussed is how easily these standardized tests can be gamed via extensive and expensive tutoring, something that wealthier, educated families have the resources to afford. These tests should be eliminated from the college admission process.

The Week (8 Nov 2019) reports the U.S. housing market is apparently humming along with, on one hand, single family starts on the rise, low mortgage rates, and investor interest. However, on the other hand, remodeling activity is slowing. The bottom line is that "years of price increases (25 percent over the past five years) have created a shortage of affordable housing as builders have not stepped up with new housing. In California, state policy makers are proposing legislation to usurp local zoning and land use controls, but appear to have not thought things through (see my prior random musing ).

Oregon, in front of emerging California policy initiatives, has imposed a statewide cap on rent hikes and passed a zoning law "requiring cities of 25,000 people or more to allow two, thee, and four unit residential buildings in neighborhoods of single-family homes, in response to a rise in home prices triple the pace of wage growth. Minneapolis is the first major U.S. city to eliminate single family zoning. The Week says that this "can't go on forever." Of course not. Just like traffic will never get as bad as the worst case "No Build" alternative, sooner or later, people will change their behavior and both live and travel elsewhere.

SmartBrief for the Higher Ed Leader (5 Nov 2019) reports that a new California law has changed the term used to describe academically struggling students to "at-promise" instead of "at-risk" in the hope of helping them improve their educational future. Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer Sr says the term "at-risk" creates "expectations of failure for our most vulnerable students." Are such students aware they are referenced via these terms? Who holds the expectation? Wouldn't either term misrepresent the expectations? Would students embrace this as a participation trophy or feel patronized by the euphemism?

The definition of "at-risk" does not change: it's merely replaced with "at promise." A student labeled as "at-promise" might still be treated as, and may perceive themselves to be, a risk. It is assumed that institutions have programs that offer appropriate benefits to struggling students and that they must be aware of their academic status. It would seem that no categorical term should be used and that the programs be offered to all struggling students, whether they be "at-risk," "at-promise," or not labeled at all.

There of course had to be a better term for it than deferred maintenance. I mean, it is deferred maintenance but the impact is measured in economic terms, which should not be surprising since these problems are created by capitalist economics. The most flagrant examples are the results of resource extraction, whether it be from the mining, oil, or timber industries, which take what's of value and leave the detritus for future generations to address. The excuse used by the fossil fuel energy industry is that addressing environmental impacts now would raise the price of heating homes, so instead we pass this cost, this "technical debt," on to our children. Virtually every consumer product and service offered in our lifetimes has been directed toward maximizing profits and the immediate gratification of consumption.

"Every difficulty slurred over will be a ghost to disturb your repose later on." Frederic Chopin

On top of the fear and loss that comes with wildfires, they are also significant contributors to climate change. Bloomberg (31 October 2019) report that northern California' Kincade fire, one of dozens burning this past month, has polluted the air on a level commensurate with the annual emissions from 320,000 cars. This does not mean that we should not be taking actions and implementing policies to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels, but the whole of California's sustainability measures in 2017 only reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 5 million metric tons (a one percent reduction) while wildfires produced 36.7 metric tons. Only an order of magnitude reduction in carbon emissions would cancel the negative carbon impact of wildfires.

A UCI colleague blogged about the removal of a signalized pedestrian crossing, replaced by a crosswalk at a newly signalized intersection about 150 feet away. At first glance, this might seem to be a relatively minor change, but the old crossing did provide a direct link between the UCI main campus and University Hills, the UCI faculty housing development, via the arch of the Engineering Gateway building which served as both a figurative and literal gateway to campus. The rationale behind the move was driven by traffic conflicts between two adjacent signalized intersections and both the unsignalized intersection and the former pedestrian crossing in between. There are at least several members of the University Hills community who are not happy.

The blog in question provided a photo from the UCI side and wrote: "It looks inviting, but you wouldn't know from this view that it's now a dead end." No, it is not a dead end. Instead of walking directly across to U-Hills, one would now walk about 150 feet north and cross at the new intersection. This path also provides direct access to the Anteater Shuttle stop (a free, electric bus service on the UCI campus). A photo is also provided from the opposite side with the comment that the "crosswalk has been ripped out, replaced by a fence, and planted with ivy to discourage anyone from crossing that way." The crossing was not "ripped out" but rather was moved. The wire median fence, similar to that in place at other locations along Peltason Drive as well as on Campus Drive, was cut by an unhappy party not once but three times and was thus replaced, at significant cost, by a metal rail fence. And, yes, this was "to discourage anyone from crossing that way" for obvious safety reasons, albeit greater inconvenience.

The blogger disses the new intersection with the "creatively named Engineering Service Road" but indicates that he doesn't even take this route to campus, instead taking "a different path down a different service road" (an uncreatively unnamed service road at that). The picture provided does show a non-inviting access point but does not show the other half which features a wide, paved, and marked pedestrian path (easy to see if the blogger just looked a few feet to the left). But none of these comments would make for a good rant.

But there's almost always at least a kernal of truth behind every rant. The plans for these UCI transportation improvements were never shared with the University Hills community, at least not directly. They were shared the Homeowners Review Board (HRB) as well as presented at the campus review committee on which the HRB has a (then unoccupied) seat. But nothing was conveyed to the UHills community in general, by any parties. I found out indirectly through a conversation on a separate matter with the UCI director of transportation services, and then only after a contract was already signed. What we have is more of an information flow problem than a pedestrian flow problem. But there's also the issue of what priorities the campus may have regarding pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The problem with infrastructure is that poor early decisions can become much worse later on. Here, the poor access and egress design for an adjacent parking structure is the root cause of most of these issues. This is why planning, and information flow, is so important. Minimally, the associated timing will determine whether rants are written before or after the concrete is poured.

Congestion relief and transit accessibility are among the policies of the Future of Transportation Caucus, newly formed in Congress to influence the comprehensive highway bill in development. While endorsing the caucus, the advocacy group Transportation for America speaks more directly, stating that vehicle speed has been "a poor proxy for access to jobs and important services like health care, education, public services and grocery stores." Ignoring the fact that both congestion relief and transit accessibility refer directly to the speed of travel, and that speed is relevant only when applied in reaching a desired destination, this advocacy group is somewhat blinded by their own light. Yes, there are equity issues in automotive transportation, but the outstanding majority of travelers benefit from the mobility provided. This is not to say that there are not real costs associated with these benefits, including climate change and fatalities, but the "way we build roads and design communities" should not necessarily be determined by the lowest common denominator. Vehicle technology is evolving so rapidly that it will lead and roadway design will need to follow. Community design is threatening to become a top-down political process, one that contradicts the very local concept of "community" and also exhibits characteristics of the very same process that began a half a century ago with centralized highway development. Simple answers sometimes mean that you're addressing too simple of a question.

My home WiFi wasn't working so I called the ISP. The automated system that all callers for service are forced to endure, after several menu selections, provided the option for a remote modem reset. This had worked before so I made the choice, waited, but had no success. I hung on for a tech rep who, in the standard second option, provided the following advice: unplug the power cable from the modem and unscrew the coaxial cable.

In an age where you can remotely track people in real time, control your home's lights, door locks, and other devices remotely, and even see someone at your front door from halfway around the world, why does one have to unplug the power and unscrew a coaxial cable to reset a supposedly high tech device? Yes, of course, this worked, but surely there's some technology that could remotely achieve this desired end (said the Luddite)?

In Capitol Journal George Skelton (LA Times 14 October 2019) performs a bit of his titular "bait and switch" in discussing the SB1 gas tax increase. He claims it was "pitched as a fix for roads, but some of it is going to rail" but only later fesses up that 20 percent of the revenue was allocated for rail and transit. His complaint does have merit in that it appears that there might be some, let's say, re-prioritization of revenues from highway projects to non-highway projects (in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). More than once our Governor has changed direction from campaign promises, so this this does beg for some attention. Claiming that Sacramento Republicans are shouting "I told you so" regarding any tax measure (and this one supported by a general election) adds nothing until a full accounting of total revenue and expenditures is made available.

Skelton argues that the campaign pitch for saving SB1 when challenged in 2018 was focused on "regional highway improvements almost exclusively." Probably true in the same way that the political ads for Los Angeles Measure M in 2016 features LA Mayor Garcetti driving down a freeway suggesting that LA really needed the sales tax revenues for roads when the Measure is overwhelmingly dedicated for non-highway projects. In Orange County, the two sales tax measures (M and M2) in the past 30 years received public support by promising specified revenue allocation and specific highway projects. They fulfilled their Measure M promise, in part with an active Citizen Oversight Committee, which led to repeated support to continue the half cent sales tax with Measure M2. There is a right way to do this. And it does help to have journalists reporting on this. In fact, it might help to catch the attention of readers by featuring "bait and switch" in the column's title. Slight of hand to make one's point?

A letter to the LA Times (13 October 2019) in response to an article "Justices disagree on LGBTQ rights" made an interesting point. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars discrimination on the basis of "sex" so an interpretation that considers what the term "sex" meant in 1964 would be similar to an interpretation of what the term (fire) "arms" meant when the 2nd Amendment was approved in 1789. The author also states that the 14th Amendment requires "equal protection of the laws," with no categorical exclusions, and in summary states that any form of discrimination is simply immoral. Hear, hear.

Is there anything more annoying and inappropriate than politicians refusing to answer a question they consider hypothetical? Many questions of value can only be hypothetical, such as "What would you do about issue X if elected?" A refusal may simply be an admission that they are ill-prepared, inadequately informed, or thinking only in their self-interest. A case in point is recent questions asked of many politicians regarding Trump's Ukrainian quid pro quo. A simple yes or no response is requested as to whether they think that it is inappropriate for a President to ask a foreign nation to interfere in a U.S. elections. Politicians respond with such inanity as "there's an investigation underway to determine that" which of course is not an answer to the question, the question being what is your perspective on a question of ethics. Refusal to answer, as is often the case, is a complete answer stating that "I myself am not ethical and therefore I will misdirect you." Hypothetically, have they no shame?

The two most expensive places in California to rent an apartment are in Westwood ($4,944 monthly average in the 90024 Zip code) and West Hollywood ($4,896 monthly average in 90048 Zip code). Gotta talk to my kids ...

Does the call for all court decisions to be unanimous apply to the Supreme Court? Or even to the appointment of SCOTUS justices?

In an LA Times OpEd (9 October 2019), one John W. York of the Heritage Foundation's Simon Center for Principles and Politics (talk about a contradiction in terms) tries to justify the electoral college without ever mentioning the reason that we have an electoral college rather than direct election of the president. That reason, of course, was to get rural agricultural states in the south to agree to approve the Constitution and join the United States. Regardless of population, each state would get an electoral vote for each congressional representative, and every state has two senators. Unless one is a strong proponent of state's rights, there is little justification for maintaining the electoral college. But this is not what York discussed. He instead tries to provide a justification that without the electoral college, cities with large populations would dominate elections, diluting the impact of low population rural areas. Even York appears to see that such a position makes no sense whatsoever since people vote and farm fields don't and instead focuses on how small this bias actually is (so, yeah, it's biased but, hey, not that much).

York is somewhat correct about one thing: the process by which states allocate electoral votes is the real problem and, currently, all but two states award all electoral votes to winning candidate. This problem, however, is clearly a problem with the electoral college. With one person, one vote, the number of people in a state is irrelevant. We simply add the total votes for each choice and the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, like every other election in a democracy.

York concludes by warning about the consequences of having "large swaths of a vast country feel they have been forgotten." York needs remedial grammar not to mention remedial geography. A swath refers to space, not people, so it should be "... feel it has been forgotten" and therein lies the problem.

"What an idiot!" is the typical reaction I've witnessed after someone views a video showing a Tesla driver literally asleep at the wheel while the vehicle speeds along in Autopilot. So why is it when videos are shown of Tesla vehicles in "Smart Summons" mode remotely activated by a driver, that the typical reaction, not to mention an editorial in the LA Times (8 October 2019), is "Why is Tesla allowed to get away with this?"

The LA Times states that "Tesla is playing fast and loose with public safety." I do not disagree that big tech companies have excess leeway and that greater caution should be exercised in permitting such innovative transportation technologies to operate in public rights-of-way. It's the comparative reaction and corresponding assignment of blame that I find most interesting. The location of most of these tests have been in parking lots, most of which are private property, which has ramifications regarding policing, risk, and responsibility which likely have not been considered. Maybe it's more difficult for an observer to assess risk when a vehicle is traveling in a straight line but at high speed, than when a vehicle is maneuvering awkwardly but at lower speeds. In any case, once again it appears to be pots and kettles.

A couple of years ago I commented on a "rash" of freeway projects and proposals, including widening of the 405 in Orange County (itself the subject of numerous posts herein) and proposals for freeway projects throughout southern California. I was a bit surprised at the level of support for these freeway infrastructure projects but not so surprised when an editorial in the LA Times (6 October 2019) spoke to "averting an eight-lane disaster." The High Desert Corridor, the eponymous "freeway of the future" in a prior post, has been shelved but neither permanently nor completely. After a successful lawsuit by the nonprofit Climate Resolve, further planning for the 63-mile freeway would require a supplemental EIR. However, Caltrans already had put a stop to this project for, get this, insufficient demand to justify building it (nor were there funds to pay for it). I'm not sure exactly who would have been making the estimated 4 million additional vehicle miles per day mentioned in the lawsuit.

The LA Times posed several questions as to why such a freeway would ever have been considered, including climate change (a great point) and that all too familiar complaint about sprawl-inducing, car-centric transportation systems (need I say more?). But they praised continued planning for the high speed rail part of the corridor thinking that this somehow would not encourage growth just as a freeway would (recall that rail lines were the original impetus of sprawl in southern California). And don't even start with why a bike route would be considered for 63-mile desert corridor.

Micheline Maynard (WPO) writes that Detroit is now more focused on Americans questioning whether they even need a car, rather than which car they need. The point is made that "the average age of car buyers continues to rise." The population, however, is aging from effects at both ends of the distribution. On the upper end, longevity has increased with better health care and, unlike several decades ago, older generations today were raised on cars and many still have licenses. On the lower end, birth rates continue to decrease and families are having children later. These facts in themselves may explain why the average age of car buyers is increasing, which seems a more reasonable explanation than stories about millennials being a mutant species sold on small apartments and public transit. The choice of car ownership has always been tightly linked to residential and work location choices as well as to income. While the specific household choices for vehicle ownership are clearly evolving, I wouldn't recommend investing in bus manufacturers quite yet.

I've never liked terms like "smart" or "intelligent" being applied to next generation transportation systems. Unlike the use of expressions such as "new and improved" for conventional consumer products, these technology-related terms seem to suggest that prior systems were neither smart nor intelligent and also leave one wondering what subsequent technologies might be deemed.

Redshift (26 Sept 2019) asks "What Is a Smart City?" and concludes that "data is the common denominator among the factors that define smart cities." Since data has always been the critical factor, Redshift suggests that real time processing is key, but they also ask just how smart we want these systems to be. Smartness, as in making effective use of available data in planning, design, and operations, has always been a feature of cities. Any added "smartness" might better be attributed to the motivation of the private sector to profit from public infrastructure.

Transportation networks have an inordinate permanence. The historical importance and continued existence of ancient human pathways such as the Inca and Roman road systems, however, are not the sort of permanence to which I refer, nor is the evolution of game trails to walking paths to, sometimes, major highways. I refer not to topographical and structural aspects of such basic pathways but to the pattern of permanence that one finds in most cities. Here, it is not the physical infrastructure of the roadway but rather the space consumed that defines the space of all other urban infrastructure. The buildings occupying the blocks formed by an urban network, while long-lived, nevertheless come and go over time, but the urban portrait of ground and background remains. It's not only the background space defined by the network links but also the space beneath them, comprising networks of transit systems, water and wastewater systems, and a multitude of other public and technology services. The arbitrary nature of the initial whims, plans, and designs of urban transportation networks belies their long term role in defining a city.

So what sort of networks might improve cities? Networks fully integrated with the space they define, suggesting hierarchical schemes, often present in recent city designs, and an end to the dichotomy of public roadways and private blocks of land use. This is where a real public private partnership might have some real value to cities.

"What a Nobel Laureate Discovers at Burning Man" Emily Badger, New York Times (8 September 2019)

Is Burning Man really be a model for urban planning? Some very good points are raised in Badger's interviews with Burning Man founders and Nobel Laureate Paul Romer, but, and it's a big but, the devil is in the details. Never-the-less, the more interesting points bear repeating. Romer is the current laureate of The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, also known as The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. In the spirit of disclosure, I do not typically side with economists but, as the article reveals, Professor Romer has become (or perhaps he has always been) a bit of an iconoclast.

Starting with Romer's paradoxical comment, the Burning Man site is "just like every other city ... except in this other way, it's like no city ever," Badger tells an interesting story, but a story more about Romer and the Burning Man ethos than about urban planning (and here, urban planning refers to physical planning, in the broadest sense). Romer does pose some interesting questions and has some interesting suggestions.

Romer believes that "this is a really unique moment in human history" where "we're likely to decide in this time frame what people are going to live with forever." Perhaps, but it's odd that an observation is made that, after 35 years, Burning Man participants are now "more Silicon Valley types and fewer anarchists" without any thought that future technology may well have more to say about future cities than conventional planning design. Romer concluded that urbanization in the developed world has largely come to an end, and that urban evolution will now "run its course across the rest of the world." I think it is more likely that evolution, particularly technology related, will continue to accelerate in developed counties well before the associated impacts are felt in developing countries, but the potential benefits of foresight are significant in both cases. Population is still urbanizing in developed countries, but it is not as many believe a migration into core cities but rather a continuation of migration from rural to suburban areas. Unlike developed urban areas with extensive fixed building and utility infrastructure, it is suburban areas that hold the greatest potential for fundamental design changes.

There's still the economist in Romer when he refers to cities as labor markets, and labor markets require the presence and maintenance of urban support infrastructure, including roads and public spaces. It's reassuring to see that once one steps away from the mantra or one's chosen field, they become open to new perspectives. Unfortunately, most people need to achieve prominence by chanting the mantra before one is presented with opportunities to reject it. The Sveriges Riksbank Prize provided Romer this opportunity. So here's one of Romer's suggestions: "stake out the street grid; separate public from private space; and leave room for what's to come. Then let the free market takeover." I agree with Romer's argument that government is the only entity that can provide the necessary structure on which to grow: a transportation network, or as Romer says, a grid. Romer, however, appears to skirt around the issue that laying out a temporary grid on a flat, uniform undeveloped landscape under a singular decision-maker has virtually nothing in common with real urban development. Some of the underlying ideas are valid, but many if not most of these ideas have been part of urban design for centuries.

One of Romer's points is the role of ideas. Creativity is often neglected in the macro-economics of capital, labor, and resources. However, I do not subscribe to his quite common claim that there is some intrinsic value in cities that make them hotbeds for creating ideas. Rather, problems and the (economic) opportunities presented by innovative problem resolution is why cities appear at the forefront: cities have more people and thus more problems so creative ideas are statistically more likely. But, either way, how can engineers and planners design cities to foster creative ideas?

Romer has another suggestion: "charter cities that would be built in the developing world but governed by nations with more advanced economies and more rules protecting ... property rights." Neocolonialism is raised as a criticism but authoritarian control is much more likely. It does seem that everything in Romer's economic past suggests that this idea is a pipe dream. Despite statements that "planners design too much, while economists cede too much to the market," realizing that the answer lies somewhere in between does not reflect the increasing centrifugal dichotomies in government and business. Is compromise even possible anymore?

Some of Burning Man's founders refer to a "sense of superordinate civic order" suggesting that "rules, structures, ..., streets, oriented spaces" can lead to a common purpose. Sounds great but turning such a utopian vision into reality, clearly possible on the fresh blank canvas of the Nevadan desert and a sole civic purpose of an adult spring break does not necessarily translate into a city with a common purpose population, regardless of scale. Reflecting on the early years of Burning Man, Romer concludes that "Anarchy doesn't scale!" but neither does "adult summer break."

I agree with Romer and the Burning Man founders that "freedom requires some structure, creativity some constraints." But how does one map having 25 years of experience with an annual blank slate for a one week bacchanal of spring breakers to centuries of history building upon layers of past city building successes and failures for a lifetime of family and civic life? I tend to side more with Burning Man founder Will Roger. Romer thinks that cities with dense interactions between people, rather than with the land, leads to "terrible ideas" but eventually "good ones." Roger thinks that cities lead to greed and consumption, killing our Earth Mother. But Romer comes clean and states that he now believes that "it's the market that is the real danger, not the city" and that economists are part of the problem. The capitalist mantra that government is bad has simply "provided cover for rich people and rich firms ... for selfish benefit" (think Orange Man rather than Burning Man). At Burning Man, we have seen an era of Mad Max replaced by the current era of Spring Break. What sort of interaction will the future hold for Burning Man? What sort of future for cities can arise from Burning Man interactions? Look for my next post to consider how these ideas would work when applied to permanent cities.

Irony 1. A Writer Grouses
Some things never change: an older person complaining about younger people protesting something. Some times, however, the irony is just too compelling to ignore. A letter in today's LA Times addresses recent, worldwide youth protests regarding climate change. The gentleman grants that it's good that young people are showing awareness "outside their personal worlds" but then adds that "grousing isn't really activism." Ironic.

Irony 2. Mea Culpa?
The gentleman then comments that all of these protesters have traveled to the protest site, are wearing cloths, are eating food, and are addicted to cell phones, each requiring use of the very same fossil fuels that they have gathered to protest. This implied irony was likely lost on the gentleman, who then states that the protesters are really protesting the cause of the problem, which the gentleman concludes is "the older generation". Hmmm.

Irony 3. Another Writer Grouses ... Mea Culpa.
Well, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that, yes, the older generation is indeed the one who following in the footsteps of preceding generations started, continued, and resists stopping the consumption of fossil fuels for travel, cloths, food, and cell phones, and, no, there really isn't a choice left to the current generations but to protest the choices that were made for them other than to stand on the closest corner naked, hungry, and without texting anyone that they and the world which they have inherited are dying. Both of these options, ironically, are indeed forms of activism, much more so than simply writing a letter to the LA Times to grouse about someone else grousing. Which, of course, is essentially what I myself am doing now. Ironic.

The Only Five Things You Need to Know About DJT:

1. DJT is nothing more than an amoral con-man, misrepresenting the truth at least 5-10 times per day.
2. DJT has a limited vocabulary and a near total lack of information and context. He will say anything to achieve his goals, including contradicting prior statements.
3. DJT's mantra is "Me, Now" and a primary motivation is to un-do everything that Obama did (perhaps due to Obama insulting Me/Now at the White House Correspondents' Dinner several years ago), which overrides his prior objectives of power and money.
4. Every person, thing, or idea is simply an obstacle in his path, to be utilized for personal gain, or to be smeared and discarded when personal gain is threatened.
5. DJT appears to have realized that the only earthlings that can achieve the above, with lifetime power and money, are dictators, thus his inordinate fondness for Putin, MJB, KJU, ...

A Brookings Institution study found that college completion rates increased by 3 percent when tuition was waived at four-year public institutions for students from families making less than $60,000 per year. One potential explanation is that such students no longer needed to work to be able to afford college. The benefits of this 3 percent increase do need to be compared to the costs of the free tuition. More importantly, we need to stop thinking in binary. A college degree is a benefit but also requires a commitment. Eliminating a significant portion of total cost will not increase commitment and would likely decrease the incentive to finish on time. What is needed is not free college but affordable college. Some public services have been designed with a minimum cost to discourage incidental usage. Some level of willingness to pay would reflect a measure of commitment to a degree program. What also seems clear is that college administrative costs are increasing and are likely to continue to do so, especially under fundamental policy changes such as a free tuition program.

The study also suggested that tuition-free community colleges did not have higher graduation rates. This may be due to the already low costs of community colleges as well as the variety of students, not all of whom are on a degree path. Similar to reducing fares for public transit, reducing costs for community college programs, while not excessively expensive, may only elevate the satisfaction level of current users without actually improving completion rates and other performance metrics.

A report from the non-profit Rocky Mountain Institute has found that's is now cheaper to expand clean energy technologies such as solar and wind than to build new natural gas plants and pipelines. [see Fast Company]

I awoke from a very convoluted and complex dream at 2 AM on 11 September 1991. Nearly 30 years later I found the transcript that I made that night. While I never made heads or tails of most of the people and events in the dream, it has become much more clear in the last week that some things at the sub-conscious level percolate over one's life until, often slowly but sometimes like a rush of blood to the head, they once again appear in front of you, as clear as you wish they had been 30 years before.

On one hand, the Supreme Court should not legislate, therefore it should only rule based on direct interpretation of the Constitution, its amendments, and existing law. On the other hand, the constitution is over 230 years old and hasn't been amended since 1992 but more importantly it has changed due to the amendment process in many significant ways (for example, slavery, direct election of senators, suffrage, and voting age). Under Originalism, the Supreme Court must adhere to the original meaning of the law, when and as written, and not interpret laws relative to changing times; rather, Congress should be changing the laws, and the Constitution as necessary, to reflect the fact that today's world is so much different than 230 years ago. What's most interesting about Originalism is that the concept of judicial review over laws, statutes, and actions that violate the Constitution was not originally granted to the Supreme Court but was established by the Court itself in Marbury v Madison in 1803. This Godelian twist of fate had an activist court seize a power it was not granted that effectively says that the Court cannot seize such powers.

The Supreme Court is subject to fundamental flaws that are unlikely to be addressed by any Congress. Life time appointments recently comprise younger judges whose biases will match the political party that controls the Senate and confirms their appointment, guaranteeing a long-term tilt in the Court. Only a revised appointment process and term limits can address this flaw, and no party in power is about to give this power away.

Today, the LA Times follows last week's editorial with "Build homes in L.A., draw a lawsuit." When your views and opinions are cast in concrete, you tend to over react when one with different views and opinions makes them known. It seems that not only our politicians but also most people are beginning to exercise this selfish behavior. Even newspapers.

The LA Times editors start with "California desperately needs to build more freeways to ease its traffic congestion." Well, not exactly. What they actually wrote about was a need that's similar in some ways and entirely different in others. They wrote "California desperately needs to build more homes to ease its housing shortage." The LA Times would certainly not write the first sentence, but why would they write the second? As always, my comments on these matters come down to growth, whether it be in housing or travel demand (and clearly the first begets the second). But is housing demand really increasing? A prior post suggested that population growth is at its lowest in years and the state may be losing one of its congressional representatives due to this population decline. While I do not necessarily agree with the lawsuit by Fix the City, I do disagree with the LA Times denigrating this group for supporting its own views and opinions on maintaining what the Times calls "car-centric suburbs" (are there any other kinds?) rather than "denser, more multi-modal neighborhoods near transit." Isn't it obvious that everyone should feel the same way? In a word, no.

An LA Times editorial (2Sept2019) blames NIMBYs who don't want more growth "to hold down traffic ... and preserve the region's low-slung suburban character." The implication is that growth will increase traffic and eliminate the desired suburban character. Which it will, as the Times agrees. Why is this an issue? The state wants 182,000 new housing units per year in Southern California alone but the entire state has averaged only 80,000 per year for a decade. So, where are all these people now?

Are you suggesting that we build in anticipation of growth that is not occurring? California has just reported is lowest population growth rate in recorded history (0.47 percent). Birth rates are stable but for several years the number of residents moving out of California has been larger than the number of international migrants moving in. So the State wants residents to change to accommodate non-residents? And don't hope that growth plans are fully coordinated with plans to expand transportation capacity, or that new immigrants are coming here for the public transit. And we thought that the former governor never exhaled.

The LA Times concludes "for too long, Southern California leaders have tried to preserve a landscape of cars and freeways and single-family homes, no matter the consequences for the next generation." First, these leaders were giving people what they wanted and the markets responded. Apparently, the LA Times does not believe that the next generation should have this choice. It's hard to imagine in a democratic, capitalist society that local communities will no longer be able to make their own choices, and that those who bought in to these choices in the past may now have their nest eggs threatened.

Theoretical efficiency on selected highway lanes (HOT lanes, cordon tolling) does not map to system level efficiency, nor is efficiency the prime directive in providing public services. Having tolled lanes for the wealthy (and for those whose costs are reimbursed by others) is a modern day version of drinking fountains for white people only. Each of us has 24 hours a day. Tolling selected facilities will increase externalities elsewhere in the network and on other users. Lands underlying these roads are public lands and should not be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

The impetus for the current Metro interest in pricing is "Twenty Eight for '28." Revenues are needed to complete 28 transit projects before the 2028 Olympics. None of us voted for an LA Olympics, few of us will benefit from an LA Olympics, and none of us should have to pay for an LA Olympics.

Has life now imitated art?

"Life is a state of mind." Jerzy Kosinski (from Being There)

Richard Feynman said "There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. ... We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers."

Let's say there are 100 million households in the US (there's actually about 25 percent more). What would each of these households do if they were given $10,000? Take a nice vacation? Pay off a car? What if the opposite happened and these 100 million households suddenly owed that $10,000 to creditors? Guess what? They do, and that's just for the current year, with the US government projecting a $1 trillion deficit (and this is projected to continue for each of the next several years). The total national deficit is over $20 trillion, meaning that right now each of those 100 million households actually owes $200,000 to pay off their share of that debt. This is a problem of astronomical, umm, economical proportions.

An AP News headline (25 Aug 2019) says "Some young Americans warm to socialism ..." This is a signal that our current political, economic, and social systems are not providing a pathway to advance for all Americans. When an individual lacks health care, a good job, has trouble meeting rent and other bills, and sees no chance for things to get better, they will warm to options that otherwise would not be attractive. When one has little or nothing, one will embrace an option where everyone has something. Our disproportional wealth distribution does not send a message that anyone can gain success in our system; rather, it's at best a feudal system that hold little hope for advancement. This is when people turn toward leaders who promote socialism. No one really wants this but lacking hope and a chance to move up, socialism becomes an option.

Something has to be done about race relations in America. The Great Melting Pot has always claimed to welcome those who embrace American culture, politics, and business, and groups that are slow or resistant to uptake tend to be shunned, whether due to language, religion, or other barriers. However, this does not explain the status of black and white relationships in America. It is difficult to believe that this has anything to do with resistance to broad assimilation. The difference is much deeper but is also spelled out in black and white.

There is much that can be done but reparations are not the place to start. First, reparations are primarily associated with direct payments to descendants of slavery, ideally from those who are descendant from slave owners. Identifying these parties is difficult if not impossible and ignores the fact that slavery was a three-way trade involving African tribes who sold their enemies to British slavers who in turn sold them to American plantation owners who then sent their products to British factories. Would all three slave-trading partners be parties to such reparations? Unlikely, so the onus would presumably fall on the U.S. government. And then there is the issues of other aggrieved parties, starting with Native Americans and extending to most ethnic groups that emigrated to America in various waves, including Europeans (the Irish come to mind).

Would government reparations be a problem? If the intent was to somehow atone for slavery, and if such reparations would not actually worsen the current black-white rift, then perhaps this could be an option. Unfortunately, this would have little if any positive effect on black and white relationships. However, having the U.S. government dedicate resources to programs that address the multitude of problems facing Black Americans, programs that address disparities in education, business and leadership opportunities, and health and social programs, then this may be a step in the right direction.

An LA Times OpEd (4 Aug 2019) agrees with the concept of adding an ethnic studies requirement for public high schools but excoriates the current legislative proposal as "an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements" (mind you, the LAT is a liberal paper). Read the editorial and write your legislators.

In "Death & Life ..." (1961) Jane Jacobs wrote "The ballet of the good city sidewalk never repeats itself from place to place, and in any one place is always replete with new improvisations." Might it be that current traffic flow models, in general, aren't transferable? Given the human element, might such models apply more to Connected/Autonomous Vehicles than for current so-called "self-driving" cars? Why are we concerned with safety issues associated with CAVs when we seem so unconcerned with the 35,000 vehicle fatalities each year, most of which are due to errors made by human drivers?

It is the complexity of the decisions being made, and not necessarily the inability of models per se, that makes it so difficulty to even partially capture real behavior. A disruptive innovation is underway in modeling, and this will change the way that we forecast and thus plan. As emergent computation becomes more common, might it be that there will be no direct way for humans to even understand from where the resulting answers come? Could it be that we have already reached this point?

So-called "sympathetic doctors" appear to be the common link behind a broad range of problems including: (1) excess prescriptions leading toward opioid abuse; (2) excess vaccination waivers leading to loss of herd immunity; (3) excess diagnoses of ADHD and related illnesses providing unfair advantages to students negotiating the road to college; and (4) excess approval of disadvantaged driving placards leading to abuse of facilities and services created to assist those who are truly disadvantaged. These are not "sympathetic doctors." These are selfish individuals motivated by personal profit and bastardizing their oaths to "do no harm."

While I listen to a wide variety of music, I'm most engaged by what may appear to be diametrically opposed genres: the blues and what is called progressive rock. Most people know what the blues is when they hear it, although there's a range of styles imbedded in the genre. The blues artist to whom I'm most engaged is the inimitable Allman Brothers Band, which managed to record and perform live in six decades despite the loss of key members. There's a joy to the blues, a joy that reflects the transition from depression to acceptance, and all the emotions that follow. On the other hand, progressive music is a bit like pornography in that most people can't define what it is but recognize it when they hear it. I don't embrace the radical definition focused on the more technical side of "progressive" as in any music that reaches for something new and different. There are qualities and complexity that are necessary conditions, so new and different, more often than not, is different but not interesting in terms of the qualities (and complexity) that I seek (I guess like art in general). Concurrent with the Allman Brothers, there have been a range of progressive artists to whom I have been sporadically engaged. The so called classic period (1969-75) featured groups such as Yes, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, King Crimson, and Genesis, and each but the last continued to perform into the current decade. There has been several waves of progressive artists, often featuring, as in has been since the beginning, groups from Europe (many from the UK and Scandinavia but, of late, I've enjoyed eastern European artists). Changes in the music industry seem to have affected the breadth and quality of progressive music less than for other genres (perhaps because it was never that popular). It's difficult to keep up with new releases from British and Polish progressive bands (see: www.progarchives.com) but much easier to stream or buy their music than in the initial years.

The common ground for the blues and progressive music is in the qualities and complexity. Whether it be a 20 minute extended improvisation (not a jam, per se) by the Allman Brothers or a faithful reproduction of a 20 minute studio composition by many progressive artists, I'm equally engaged. But I'm also disinterested in many similar artists whose music fits the genre but doesn't satisfy my thirst for those certain qualities and complexities that produce what often becomes a cathartic experience. These experiences are not unique -- often, the same few dozen compositions form a personal musical canon that virtually always is worth the time investment. Ars longa, vita brevis.

Has college gotten too easy? This question was posed by Joe Pinsker in The Atlantic based on research by Jeff Denning at BYU that attempted to explain why college completion rates were improving. Freshman GPAs are increasing but with no apparent explanatory factors leading to a potential conclusion that colleges are perhaps changing standards for degrees. My take is as follows.

First, there's high school grade inflation, both direct and via Advanced Placement GPA inflation, which increases the assessment of student quality on paper. Second, there is a second order grade inflation: with the better students taking AP courses, second tier students have replaced them in regular classes, and in turn earn the A on a lower level performance. Third, the desire for better grades, rather than better understanding, can lead toward teachers assigning better grades. Both parental and peer pressure toward college admission has increased pressure for better grades such as on standardized tests, which leads toward greater reliance on tutors and test advising services that promise better grades through preparing for the test rather than simply learning the material. These factors mask a deteriorating level of student abilities in problem solving, creativity, and connectivity. Students appear equally or even more qualified when they apply for college, but the grades are inflated: while the best are still very good, second tier applicants are ranked much higher but are still second tier.

This grade inflation continues in many academic programs When A+ grades were first authorized in our programs at UCI, some colleagues claimed that they would use them only for those exceptional students, but soon any student that would have earned an A was getting an A+, which means those who would have learned a lower grade received instead an inflated grade as everyone moves up. It may simply be a case where tough love is needed. We are not doing anyone a favor by inflating their worth and not challenging them to increase their skills, general knowledge, and creativity.

* This term was borrowed from one Michael Steven Levinson who I knew in Buffalo in the mid-70s. I just did a Google search and found www.michaelslevinson.com which has got to be the same Lev. Viva Adman and Even.

A letter in the LA Times today (23 July 2019) in reference to Berkeley re-defining a manhole as a maintenance hole and a craftsman as an artisan concluded "I guess that management has manipulated its mandate" (my emphasis).

UCI researchers have concluded that toddlers 21 to 27 months old experience something called the "recency bias" which means when they're asked if they would rather have cake or broccoli, 85.2 percent of the time, when answering verbally (as oppose to throwing the broccoli on the floor), they'll choose broccoli over cake because it was the last option they heard.

If I wanted my children to make healthier choices, I could either employ the "recency bias" and ask if they would rather have cake or broccoli, where according to the UCI researchers the latter (and healthier) choice would be made 85.2 percent of the time, or I could just give them broccoli and have the healthier choice 100 percent of the time. If parents also were subject to a recency bias, would they respond to my second choice of offering only broccoli 85.2 percent of the time? And what parents are giving toddlers a choice of cake or broccoli?

An LA Times OpEd (14 July 2019) entitled "Clear the Way for faster buses" asks whether "LA should dedicate more lanes to buses to make mass transit more appealing and convenient." Of course. Climate change is real, full buses are much more efficient in terms of energy use and emissions. And who can argue against a "transit-friendly, environmentally sustainable city?" But remember Nancy Reagan's "Just say no!" about smoking? Or was it drugs? Premarital sex, right? Whatever. It was a good idea, but as they say, the devil is in the details. So let's take a closer look.

First, transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the state. This does not mean that efforts to reduce GHG emissions should focus exclusively on transportation or for that matter on personal automobiles rather than diesel trucks (which together account for only about 30 percent of total GHG emissions). For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council reports that when considering the entire production process uneaten food generates GHG emissions equivalent to the output of 37 million cars each year. While this is a national statistic, there are only 15 million or so motor vehicles in California. Not wasting food is a win-win, while eliminating car travel has significant economic consequences.

Second, bus ridership in LA is down 25 percent over the past decade, with contributing factors including a booming economy, a glut of used cars, driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants, and higher housing costs in developed areas. The LA Times offers another reason: buses have gotten slower (a 12% speed reduction over 25 years) because they're stuck in the same worsening traffic as cars. This may contribute to the status quo -- why change from a car to a bus going the same speed -- but does not at all explain the 25 percent decrease in bus ridership. The time penalty in using bus transit is not travel speeds, rather, it's access and egress times. Faster buses can reduce waiting times but will not address the first mile / last mile problem of access and egress (and in fact might make is worse). Further, even a faster bus with reasonable access and egress times is still a bus, and that's why all those people who used to ride the bus changed to cars as soon as it became possible.

Third, is it surprising to anyone that plans to remove travel lanes are opposed by drivers and plans to remove parking lanes are opposed by businesses? The impact of reduced capacity is a real cost to both drivers and businesses, a cost that in most cases will exceed the savings in cost of switching to bus. This does not mean that in an ideal world, most people would take public transit. It does mean in our current society, despite the threat of climate change, most people have sunk costs in cars, jobs, and houses that cannot be obviated by switching to bus for a work commute. The LA Times mentions the potential reduction of landscaped medians, apparently forgetting the importance of more greenery and trees to absorb carbon, perhaps the best means of addressing climate change.

Fourth, California's problems with affordable housing and legislative attempts to address housing shortages are explicitly tied to public transit. The LA Times states that "proximity to high quality transit tends to increase home values," a correct assessment but not one that puts the lower income population that would use transit most, and not just for commuting, near transit stations and lines.

Fifth, reduction of capacity along major transit corridors will move some vehicle traffic from current routes to parallel routes which will shift the impacts of noise, emissions, and safety into neighborhoods not directly benefiting from improved transit. The LA Times agreed that this would be so "at least some of the time."

Sixth, political leaders may not be willing to make the tradeoffs necessary to "vastly improve the bus system" but the real question is whether any of these tradeoffs would actually change traveler behavior. It's also whether other options might be more effective, especially when packaged with smaller changes to the transportation system, to move us toward a sustainable transportation future (for example, stop wasting food).

Last, uncontrolled growth is the real problem. And the hardest decision, as once voiced by Nancy Reagan, is to know precisely to what or to whom you are saying no.

A "Letter on Letters" in the LA Times today (13 July 2019) describes Trump as "mean-spirited, narcissistic, bigoted, dictator-loving, lying, vulgar, money-grubbing, (and) un-American." While it would be difficult if not impossible to argue with the first seven characteristics, it is with considerable regret that I am beginning to believe that the eighth attribute is simply not valid: those seven deadly vices are increasingly associated with being an American.

The Reason Foundation wears their libertarian heart on its sleeve and yet once again calls for HOV lanes to be replaced with toll lanes. While "variable-priced tolling provides needed transportation revenue to build, maintain and operate the lanes" nothing will replace the loss of this public right-of-way dedicated forever to those who can afford to pay (or for someone who works for an entity that can afford to pay for them). It seems that there are but two possibilities for HOV lanes: either they are underutilized, so its Reason-able to turn them into to toll lanes, or they are degraded, a technical term that means they are over-utilized, so it's Reason-able to turn them into toll lanes. Reason has the same answer for everything: toll things that we personally are willing to pay for, just don't tax us. Reason-able? No.

With the likelihood that fundamental changes are on the horizon for the future of roadways, private vehicles, and how we pay for transportation, the last thing any reasonable person should want to do is to commit to a system that will prevent us from making changes when they are needed.

Submitted for your approval: the UK ambassador does his job and reports to his government his professional positions on Trump and his policies, positions voiced by many former members of the Trump administration, followed by Trump tweeting his personal opinions on the UK ambassador for being mean to the President on the playground of his mind. Trump then wishes the ambassador, as with all those who disagree with him, into the cornfield. Yet another lesson to be learned, in The Twilight Zone.

Epwo m-baa pokin in-gitin'got?

Jonah Goldberg's OpEd in the LAT (9 July 2019) addresses claims by Sebastian Junger that there is a genetic predisposition toward our political orientations. Recommended reading. Goldberg warns against turning philosophical arguments into some new form of identity politics. "There's a vast amount of small c or 'genetic' conservatism in contemporary progressivism and a great deal of radicalism in conservatism. That's because ... the right supports the market and the 'creative destruction' it brings, while the left defends the regulatory state and the protections it provides." Maybe a middle ground is more than just a statistical measure of central tendency.

Recent news forums have discussed whether Uber and Lyft drivers are employees or contractors. As in that SNL bit from many years ago where "Shimmer" is both a dessert topping and a floor wax, those active in the gig economy are neither employees nor contractors yet both at the same time. Does flexibility in working for multiple companies (both Uber and Lyft) imply that no conventional employee benefits should be accrued (even conventional corporation have full and part time designations)?

This binary bias is increasingly pervasive. Either you're for us or against use, whether it be Democrat or Republican, pro-life or pro-choice, jobs or environment, and so on. I find it quite odd that even longstanding arguments regarding belief in a God have always had at least three categories (yes, no, and not sure), although few ask whether the concept is even on someone's radar (Do you believe I have an Uncle Larry?). The binary extremes typically only bracket the possibilities. It's up to each of us to search the space in between.

Are you control or are you chaos? Are you alone or apart?
Are you for now? Are you forever? Are you the end or the start?
Ones and Zeros (3RDegree, 2018)

An Editorial in the LA Times (7 July 2019) "The future of the gig economy" provides a nice overview of the issues and potential resolutions.

"There are 10 different kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't."

Words matter. The Environmental Protection Agency was created to protect our environment. Period. Not to bolster the bottom line for fossil fuel corporations (who are represented by the Departments of Commerce and Energy). The current administration's myopic view is clear from the bias and incompetence of high level EPA administrators such as Bill Wehrum who did more to bolster coal industry profits than to help protect the environment and public health. Wehrum is yet another EPA official who has resigned amid possible ethics violations.

Like a proverbial ostrich who buries its head in the sand to believe it is safe
from a threat, the EPA has decided to ignore science and bury its head in the past.

Recent years have been marked by the consistent, self-serving promotion by the private sector of public-private partnerships (P3) for transportation infrastructure, a slow creep from stare decisis that now may be matched with a mirror image for housing infrastructure in California with a progressive public sector push toward overriding local land use controls by imposition of statewide housing policies. These are intrinsically linked but inherently at odds with California public sector sustainability legislation and policy, at local, regional, and state levels. One of big brother's hands says eliminate local zoning and land use controls to allow developers to build more housing, preferably near existing transit services, while the other hand says let the private sector build and operate transportation facilities and services. The problem is quite simple: the profit in real estate and in transportation operations will not be in affordable housing or public transit. The lack of affordable housing is in part due to lingering effects of the great Recession as is the decline in public transit. Strong post-recession auto sales and leases have increased the number of used vehicles which together with extending state driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants have sharply reduced public transit ridership. The conceptual desires implicit in state legislation such as AB32 and SB375 to establish sustainable development are not matched in function to what is happening. Although California's population growth is slowing, vehicle miles traveled has continues to rise and smog has once again become a real problem. Yet the state does not seems to see that the key element of any form of sustainability is controlling growth.

The Southern California Association of Governments is resisting state housing demands (as expressed in SB50, recently tabled but sure to resurface), preferring to rein in development perhaps to better address sustainability concerns such as traffic congestion, smog, and resource limitations and costs of water and other public utilities. Southern California has reported a 10 percent increase in deaths attributed to ozone pollution from 2010 to 2017 (LAT, 2 July 2019). The Clean Air Act requires smog reductions but there are no identified funds available and the federal government is trying to roll back emission standards. Somehow the state cannot see the disconnect that on one hand encourages growth of housing and transportation infrastructure yet on the other knows not how to address the impacts of that growth.

Dynamic Problem Repair, the tongue-in-cheek OpEd in today's LA Times by Barry Goldman, would be very funny if it wasn't very true. When a problem is presented to you, be it anything from "Check Engine Light" to climate change (which are oddly connected), toss out the experts, throw away the data, and don't believe what you hear or see. Wait ... how did this get printed?

In "Rethinking America's Highways," Robert Poole furthers his vision of privatizing the highway system, a vision that I do not share. The highway transportation system has a predominant feature that makes it fundamentally different from the various utilities for which Poole attempts an analogy. That difference is public right-of-way. While multiple utility providers can compete in the same physical space (and often on the same physical networks), this is not the case for roadways. This does not mean that pricing models cannot be part of the rethinking but it does mean that the private sector cannot be. I've already argued that the private sector rightfully profits from the planning, design, and construction of the highway transportation system but that any siphoning of pricing revenues toward private sector profits and long term commitment of public right-of-way is not in the best interests of the general public.

Proponents of privatization gain the reader's interest by pronouncing infrastructure degradation as resulting from a broken funding system, conveniently ignoring that a simple indexing of fuel taxes (a hard to pass proposition but Poole's option would be even more difficult to implement, not to mention one that places the country on a path of no return) provides the short term solution, regardless of potential changes in fuel consumption and average fuel economy. In the long run, change is expected, but the last thing we should do when facing uncertainty is to lock up public right-of-way for a lifetime and have me saying "told you so!"

How does a NIMBY philosophy work? In a word, it doesn't. Unless, that is, an awful lot of people share that philosophy. Starting as a colloquial expression, NIMBY has become a pejorative term for typically conservative people who, by definition, like things the way they are. In psychology, this is called human behavior; in everyday life, this is called common sense. A home is the largest investment most people make in their lifetimes, an investment that has taken on a proportionally greater value in today's economy but also greater criticism with decreasing housing affordability preventing many people from participating, at least in selected areas. The average person will care more about their house, and its value, than about houses not in the area, in the same manner than family and friends are valued and protected more than strangers. Altruistic behavior can only occur when a person feels secure in their personal well-being, whether it be their family, home, neighborhood, or broader community. Behavior is thus objectively selfish. Most of your ancestors were selfish: that's why you're here. That's why most people are here today and that's why most people are NIMBYs.

This does not mean that people cannot be part of a broader community that embraces problems of those less fortunate, such as the many housing problems now facing California including homelessness, gentrification, decreasing affordability for both owned and rental housing, and a general lack of available housing stock in many areas. To address these problems will require buy-in from those who already have secure housing and not proposing that their lifetime investments in such housing would now be compromised by progressive ideals that local entities (communities, neighborhoods, or families) will no longer be able to control local investments. There are many alternatives to address these problems, ranging from accepting the problem as growth management to building local government housing. Why would any objective person start with an extreme position (now all too common in extreme progressive and conservative camps) and expect to not face resistance (very broad resistance, since most of us are NIMBYs)? Most people, including NIMBYs, agree that the state should formulate objectives that encourage more home building, preserve existing housing, and protect renters. As always, the devil is in the details. And one detail that must be part of any successful policy is a combination of the second and third objectives, that is, preserving single family neighborhoods, where most of the residents are effectively renters paying off a mortgage. These people, after all, will be the ones paying taxes to support these policy objectives.

"Finding Common Ground with First Responders" in an upcoming OCTA webinar (19 June 2019) that considers means to ensure that "every second counts" in emergency response but also changes road design to effectively lower network speeds. Traffic calming techniques are not supported by first responders since response times are slowed and many road users, particularly motorized vehicle users (an unknown proportion, to the best of my knowledge), passively resist in appreciation of the status quo (sort of a transportation silent majority, with no intended nod to Nixonian or other moral claims to majority status). Oddly, bicycle speeds are quite higher than pedestrian speeds, but it is bike proponents who appear to be driving this, not pedestrians.

The questions are many. What sort of multi-modal networks should we be planning, modeling, designing, and building? Planning models typically ignore the slow modes (due to low volumes in highly aggregate models). Rarely do operational models fully reflect mixed mode flows. Should we be developing models where speeds and capacity, and thus performance, are a function of the user mix and not conventional roadway design? Will AVs (someday) address safety, environmental, and capacity issues obviating the concerns of other road users? or will AVs be forced to adapt to the behavior of other "road" users? Can a society premised on the mantra of "bigger, better, faster, more!" (apologies to 4 Non Blondes) evolve into one where diversity and equality take center stage?

An interesting OpEd in today's LA Times (4 June 2019) addresses engineers and public service. Joseph Menn comments that Harvard Law was "upset to learn that only 20% of its graduating class was heading for public service." Menn adds that at most top engineering schools that percentage is close to zero. Menn is concerned that engineers have "left behind the concept that engineers have a responsibility to the broader social good." I have no idea to what degree this concern also applies to other professionals such as in medicine or business.

Menn suggests that what is needed is "public service technology," engineering done for the government or non-government organizations (NGOs), or even corporations "donating some of their (engineering) time for the greater good." A great idea, but Menn does not appear to understand that in Civil Engineering, this is already the case. In fact, the problem more likely is due not to failures in engineering education but in the overwhelming narrative that a killing in the technology industry is a business win -- rampant profits -- and not a contribution to the greater good. Maybe it's our business schools rather than our engineering schools that need to recalibrate.

Can any system successfully instill a population to embrace innovation and creativity in science, technology, and business while simultaneously suppressing the same in individual rights, social affairs, and quality of life? Can consciousness be categorically constrained?

If you think public infrastructure, in particular transportation infrastructure, is "set in concrete" and thus impossible to efficiently change, how about private infrastructure, especially the high rise building stock in mature metropolises? Once an urban development pattern is defined vertically in the extreme, forget about changing it horizontally. Careful consideration of the future should be the cornerstone of any infrastructure plan since, while buildings will last a lifetime, the city's footprint may be eternal.

Voting is a constitutional right, but one needs to register to exercise it, and the right can be forfeited in certain circumstances. (Should gun ownership be any different?) Records are kept of everyone's voting history -- not the specific votes cast but the fact that one participated in an election. (Should gun ownership be any different?) Both are effectively "opt-in" enterprises, and both have supporters encouraging active participation (whether it be a "get out the vote" program or proposals to arm teachers, students, shoppers, etc.).

Recent proposals include automatic voter registration when applying for driver's licenses, but this is simply leading the horse to water. Likewise, proposals to drop the voting age to 16 suffer from a similar inability to see the big picture. People don't vote, not because they're not registered, or they're too young, or they didn't have time. They don't vote only because they don't care and they've been disenfranchised and think that their vote won't make a difference anyways. They also don't vote because it just ain't easy. Political parties will register you and give you all the information to vote for the candidates of their choice, but the right to vote has a responsibility to be informed on what your vote means. Life, and more so politics, has become so incredibly complex and divisive that people check out (except party die-hards, which is likely what the political parties want). This is a vicious cycle.

Some new thinking is in order. Maybe we should vote for issues, not candidates. Maybe people should qualify for voting by showing some knowledge of the issues (a two part vote: the first is a multiple choice question on an issue -- if you get it right, you're then allowed to vote on the issue). Or at least a similar test such as the DMV requires every so many years (Are you still alive? Do you know a few important rules about driving?). Maybe voting should be a temporary opt-in that needs to be renewed every 5 or 10 years?

"The art of the infrastructure deal" is the title of Aaron Klein's OpEd in today's LA Time (29 May 2019). Klein starts and ends with five paragraphs nicely setting the table with the infrastructure package that was formulated with bipartisan support 20 years ago, presenting a little more politics than policy. The middle five paragraphs, however, summarize what I've been writing about for the last few years regarding transportation infrastructure policy, so I thought that a summary of "our" points was in order.

1. The Gas Tax, although unchanged at the federal level since 1992, would have covered most of our infrastructure needs had it only been indexed to inflation (or at least to fuel costs).

2. False Arguments, regarding diminishing effectiveness of the gas excise tax, such as electric vehicles not paying fuel taxes, increased fuel economy, and the average age of cars on the road, should be discarded (with Klein providing appropriate real (not fake) data.

3. The End of VMT, the first of two solid arguments suggesting that some prognosticators of transportation trends need to find another source of income, is truly "fake news" since VMT has been increasing, rapidly, since 2014 (a 23% increase per capita over 20 years ago).

4. Millennials are Different is the second fake trend since, controlling for their bad timing regarding starting careers just as the Great Recession hit, Millennials are just like the rest of us. Unemployment was cut in half and these not-so-different youngsters got jobs and driver's licenses and moved to the suburbs with their new cars.

5. The More Things (Don't) Change, the more they stay the same. The gas excise tax, adjusted to match economic growth, will provide the funding needed for most of our infrastructure needs, at least for the next decade. Maybe then electric vehicles will exceed more than one percent of the domestic vehicle fleet, millennials will realize the error of their ways, or another recession will roll in and the false prophets will crawl back out, admire all the newly improved transportation infrastructure, and try to tell us that the fuel tax is broken.

An LA Times article (26 May 2019) discussed a problem that Lyft drivers have when they lease a car from Lyft. The article quotes per-mile pay for Lyft drivers as only 38 to 46 cents per mile when they lease from Lyft but still only 60 to 68 cents per mile when they drive their own vehicle. Using a ballpark figure of 60 cents per mile to cover total costs of car ownership, it would appear that the profit margin is only 6 to 8 cents per mile for ride hailing owner/operators. Is this sustainable? Those whom lease from Lyft apparently lose 14 to 22 cents per mile driven (while they lose money on every sale, maybe they make it up in volume;).

In an LA Times OpEd (25May2019) Virginia Heffernan write about a series of 13 tweets by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich) from 18 May 2019. Heffernan praises not only the clarity of his message but also the skill expressed in the medium. I repeat the tweets here verbatim:

• Tweet 1. Here are my principal conclusions:
  1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report.
  2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
  3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
  4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
  
• Tweet 2. I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller's redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.
• Tweet 3. In comparing Barr's principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller's report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's analysis and findings.
• Tweet 4. Barr's misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.
• Tweet 5. Under our Constitution, the president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." While "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.
• Tweet 6. Contrary to Barr's portrayal, Mueller's report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.
• Tweet 7. In fact, Mueller's report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.
• Tweet 8. Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.
• Tweet 9. While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.
• Tweet 10. Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch's jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law -- the foundation of liberty -- crumbles.
• Tweet 11. We've witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees -- on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice -- depending on whether they're discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.
• Tweet 12. Few members of Congress even read Mueller's report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation -- and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report's conclusions within just hours of its release.
• Tweet 13. America's institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

Amash was attacked by his colleagues for a position counter to what they felt was the GOP party-line, but not criticized for the validity of his argument.

The California legislature has been quite pro-active in transportation policy, in particular relative to the environment and sustainability, with AB32, SB375, and SB743, each a case where they were in front of the curve if not in front of what was even possible. They are now trying to do the same in housing, "to boldly go where no (state) has gone before" (apparently, while you can't build your way out of congestion, the driving force behind the above bills, the state thinks that you can build your way out of the housing problem. I'm particularly interested in the transportation impacts of state-imposed housing in local jurisdictions, especially within well-planned cities in terms of transportation planning (such as Irvine). The assumptions being made about parking and transit use need to be studied.

In the space of two hours I denied the gastronomical pleasures of cauliflower gnocchi, totally mangled the name of Vampire Weekend while totally forgetting where I saw them and what they sang, and refused to accept that the rat-a-tat-tat sound of a woodpecker was actually coming from a real woodpecker on the treehouse in my backyard until I walked outside and saw it with my own eyes, just after mowing through my daughter's cauliflower gnocchi. "This Life:" it hasn't usually been like this, "as natural as the rain."

The LA Times reports (29 April 2019) that the local Vision Zero program, launched in 2015 and envisioned to end traffic fatalities by 2025, has thus far not been successful, with fatalities increasing by 32 percent since the program began. Unlike another LA Times article about riding buses on the Sunset line, this one strays into statistics. Granted, it is more difficult to write about fatalities than a regular day in the life, but the devil is in the details. First, although I have criticized Vision Zero for embracing an unachievable goal, sometimes overreach can bring about significant movement toward a goal (maybe 'Toward Zero' is not as catchy as 'Vision Zero' but in most fields vision is never 20/20). Unfortunately, the program was launched just as a rapid increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled began across the country in 2014 after a significant drop during the Great Recession. Traffic fatalities are highly correlated with exposure, which VMT measures. I haven't done the math, but it's possible that, despite the absolute increase, the proportional change could be decreasing.

Second, the article also strays into road diets with an unidentified source claiming that "the best way to slow down drivers is to remove a lane." Placing bottlenecks in the traffic stream may slow traffic through the bottleneck but does so by shifting traffic to parallel routes (this was the case in several LA experiments that were eventually reset). While traffic safety is a critical factor in transportation system design, there are many other factors and reporting is often myopic. Unlike in other areas, transportation decision makers seem unwilling to address problems by focusing on the root cause: more often than not, accidents and fatalities are the result of inattentive or even unskilled driving. Vision Zero needs to re-focus: it's not our roads that need to be corrected; rather, it's our drivers.

... with the wind.

Initially interesting, an OpEd in today's LA Time addressing "why Finland tops lists of the most happy and healthy" but focusing on education, was ultimately not. At least not when the conclusion was that the U.S. "can learn a great deal from how Finland runs its schools." The bottom line is that these two countries are incredibly different, particularly in physical and demographic scale and diversity. Finland, with a fundamental leaning toward socialized society with very high taxes, has fewer people than New York City in an area smaller than California, with a population that is virtually uniform -- ethnic Finns speaking Finnish, living long and reproducing below replacement rate. The education system also appears uniform, and excellent at producing uniform, long-living clones. It seems that the less diverse a place is, the more happy and healthy the population is. But with a 1.5 birth rate, this can't last. But it sounds like a great place to visit.

On the subject of traffic congestion, the argument was made (for the umpteenth time) that "congestion is so bad" that "politicians have no choice but to contemplate charging motorists more to drive." On the subject of political congestion, particularly in areas not in the historical purview of a particular level of government (such as state interference in local land use controls), the argument could be made that "interference is so bad" that "the public has no choice but to contemplate charging politicians more to legislate."

Based on a 2019 Chapman University survey the majority of Orange County residents appear less conservative than often thought, supporting gun control and tougher environmental laws. But one of the three biggest problems mentioned, as is often the case in such surveys, was traffic. And, as is also often the case, people support public transit, but for other people to use. About 95 percent of OC residents have never taken the bus and 70 percent would still drive even if public transit was more efficient. The survey concludes that, theoretically, people want options, but practically, such options are at best a Plan B. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Andrea Domanick's LA Times (27 March 2019) lyrical piece on Randy Randall's release event for "Sound Field Volume One" has much to offer, from Domanick's "... memories of childhood are inextricable from the freeways that circumscribed it" and "... mornings spent daydreaming out the car windows, lulled by the rhythm of traffic and his parents' mixtapes, as Interstate 10 carried them past terra-cotta suburbia, through industrial congestion, and, finally, to the beach." On freeways, Randall finds that "... there's this beauty to the mundane, eyesoreness of it" and Domanick refers to a freeway as "... a spiritual thoroughfare that captures the plurality of the Angeleno experience through the dynamism and intimacy of the commute" to which Randall adds "... getting around is how you really experience the city -- not the 'where you're going,' but the 'how you get there.'" The ambient qualities of the LP aren't for me but, here, the sound bites really resonate.

"So this, then, is the Republican Party response to climate change. In the executive branch, we have an administration that pulled out of the Paris climate accord, put a coal lobbyist in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency, tried to bury government studies showing the threats we face, is rolling back every climate regulation it can find, and of course is led by a man who regularly says climate change is an elaborate hoax. And in the legislative branch, the GOP's leadership is focused on trolling Democrats." Paul Waldman, Washington Post (29 March 2019)

Congestion pricing: whatever is your take on the economics, or the success in reducing congestion during the period in question, or your objectives to address environmental or safety issues, the bottom line is the explicit favoring of those who can afford to pay, over those who can't, for use of public right-of-way.

LA has completed a study of congestion pricing on the Westside, and Laura Nelson (LAT, 28 March 2019) repeats what we already know: (1) it's 'worked' in the Central Business Districts of a small number of major international metropolises (including Singapore, London, and Stockholm); (2) pricing will reduce the number of vehicles in the target area during the target time by a number depending on the price; (3) those priced out are assumed to either not travel, travel to other destinations, by other modes, or at other times (sort of a reverse induced demand, or 'Impeded Demand'); and (4) people don't like it.

Westside study results are presented in a typical obfuscating manner: a $4 fee would produce a 20 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled and traffic delay (that, is, VMT and delay reductions experienced by those still driving in the area but those who choose to travel otherwise may have increased, decreased, or similar VMT, and for those now foregoing the trip, perhaps an infinite delay). Results also include increases of 9% in transit ridership, 7% in biking, and a 7% in walking, inside the zone, but note that these are percentages of extremely small numbers of existing transit and bike users and pedestrians. Annie Nam, a SCAG project manager, comments that sky-high tolls are not needed "to really effect the kind of behavior changes that we're looking for." I'm not sure if this implies that SCAG has specific behavior changes in mind, particularly for those priced out of their current behavior, or if it really is aimed at just the aggregate (i.e., non-distributional) effects.

Standing between the study and actual deployment is state law and public opinion (some would include ethics and environmental justice). The study does show that the primary users would be those who can afford the required payments, mainly residents of wealthy communities. Although people typically oppose pricing before it's implemented, UCLA's Brian Taylor says that "when people see it in practice, they tend to go from majority opposition to majority support." With precious few real world cities implementing pricing, it is unclear where such an overarching conclusion could be drawn. I hope he's confusing reaction in Stockholm with potential reaction in LA as if there's any comparison between what Swedes and Americans do (Sweden's tax rates are about 60 percent of income, so Swedes are likely already suffering from Stockholm Syndrome).

System improvements would be needed to counter the lack of access to those priced out. The article suggests that protected bike lanes and express bus service might work, but this ignores basic constraints of alternative modes relative to personal vehicles, not the least of which is overall system connectivity. There's a reason why congested areas are congested, and it's not inadequate transportation options; rather, it's inadequate restrictions on growth relative to the given transportation supply. Potential revenues (of $69 million in the case study) from congestion pricing could pay for the necessary improvements, but this is not the same as saying that everyone will be equally well off when all is said and done.

A former LA mayor referenced "traffic, congestion, and gridlock," perhaps in the "surrounding, ambient environment" (as expressed by a senior, tenured, full professor). Language should not be an impediment to communications, but in practice it often is. Sound bites have to 'bite' but they do not have to make sense. Like Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo) who in December said that Obamacare offered families "insurance they don't need with deductibles they can't afford." If they don't need insurance, then deductibles are not an issue, right? But, like the former mayor's comments, it's the soundbite that's important.

The City of Irvine has been engaged in politics and planning regarding the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro since the base's decommission was announced in 1999. A master planned community, Irvine's development has proceeded by designated planning areas. The MCAS land was, with perhaps some humor intended, designated as Planning Area 51. The difference between the myths associated with the more well known Area 51 and the City's planning area is that the manipulations of the public by the Irvine government and the developer have been real.

A con man uses lies, insults, and empty promises, while a magician uses smoke, mirrors, and sleight-of-hand, both for misdirection so those watching don't see what really is happening. You welcome the opportunity to have a magician fool you badly, and you even go home happy. But with a con man? It's hard to admit you've been conned so you're more likely to double down. Many say this can happen to some; some say that it already has happened to many.

California's newly elected Governor is exhibiting certain behaviors of his presidential nemesis. While running, he stated he would support California law with respect to the death penalty, but now has declared a moratorium on capital punishment. In pushing unrealistic housing policies, he threatened to withhold transportation revenues from a gas tax that he supported while running for governor in the same election that saw voters both reject a proposition to stop the tax and approve one that guarantees that all funds will be spent as promised. Perhaps we can chalk this up to inexperience, but we all thought that he was paying attention for the past two years.

A editorial in The Week (22 March 2019) addresses cultural sensitivity in writing. An author who had vetted young adult manuscripts for sensitivities with respect to gender, race, and privilege saw his own book taken to task on social media for insensitivities after which he apologized and asked for the book to be withdrawn. These are works of fiction. One might think that this editorial was actually a proposal for a fictional tale, but one would be wrong. Any artistic work should be taken on its inherent merit, and not subject to cultural sensitivities. All ideas should enjoy the same consideration.

The scientific facts do not need to be discussed: science deniers are well aware of the years of peer-reviewed studies, all completed by the same cadre of scientists who are also responsible for industrial production methods, technology innovation, and most other inputs to the creation of wealth in our economy. Links between scientific research, economic growth, and quality of life are well understood by science -- both those who practice it and those who shortsightedly deny it.

Science also provides an understanding of the links between some portions of economic growth and the resulting negative impacts on long-term economic prosperity and on both short- and long-term quality of life. Fortunately, the record is quite clear: existing policies to reduce pollution actually save consumers money, spurs the development of cleaner technology, and reduces the risks of climate change. These economic impacts are also well-documented. There is simply no option: decision-makers must follow the clear scientific and technical evidence that supports reaffirming public policy established by preceding administrations. Our children's children, as well as those of science deniers, will be included in those who suffer if decision-makers refuse to grasp the obvious. We must shift from fossil fuel or we will surely become part of the supply.

... like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana (once said a Grouch). But time change? No one seems to like that. I myself have never thought much about Daylight Savings Time, other than observing that daylight is not being saved, and I thus never gave much thought to the annual time change (but then I've never given much thought to time at all, at least in terms of keeping it). Needing to change household clocks twice each year does at least provide the opportunity to both set and synchronize them. But that mnemonic device "Spring forward, fall back" makes no more sense to me than "Spring back, fall forward." Fortunately, there are always a few clocks, and soon likely all clocks, that will automatically display the correct time.

But it does make me wonder why so many people seem to care so much about this. A letter in the LA Times today suggested that we should have only one time zone, which (somehow) both China and India have (whether that would include Alaska and Hawaii was not clear). Just because I might awake hankering for breakfast at an NYC cafe doesn't mean the 2,500 miles in between are going to disappear, nor will the fact that that NYC cafe is now more likely serving lunch to New Yorkers who have already been working since the sun came up a few hours before. The solution may be re-setting our clocks to the time before there were clocks. Get up when the sun comes up (present company excepted). Schools, businesses, and people in general can start activities at a defined time after local sunrise (or based on an appropriately long period of a nominal sunrise). Cell phones would handle the details. The more likely resolve is to have the federal government establish Daylight Savings Time as permanent. Maps show that only a few areas of the continental US would be negatively affected by such a change. Then we can find something a bit more pressing in which to search for lost time.

A letter writer to the LA Times took a broader view of the recent college admissions scam and suggested that even legal donations to colleges bias the admission process. Another writer, however, suggested letting the wealthy buy slots for their children (since that is precisely what they have always done and will continue to do in the future). On the one hand, such a proposal does not address the critical issue of merit, particularly for public institutions. On the other hand, this is precisely what the public sector is starting to do on public roads. If you can pay more, you can go faster and farther -- we'll guarantee it. I would gander that most geese do not have as big of a problem with roads. Perhaps it's just a matter of scale, and not a matter of principle. Regarding principle, let's start by eliminating standardized tests and preferred athletics admissions in academic institutions. And no HOT lanes.

Why bother protecting your homeland if you are trashing it at the same time. Screw the environment, to hell with infrastructure, and let's not even waste time on poverty, the elderly, and health care. As long as the one percenters can make their billions, with no responsibilities except to maintain the status quo, and as long as government does those few things one percenters need -- defend the homeland (at home and internationally) and replace taxation with user fees -- then they will be happy. Worst case scenario: they'll migrate from their soiled if not unlivable homeland to ... umm ... well, maybe they haven't figured everything out.

A compound German word, Zugunruhe combines zug (move, migration) and unruhe (anxiety, restlessness) to describe the anxious behavior in birds and other migratory animals. I'm not sure if this applies to nomadic behavior in humans, although it is reflected in Kerouac's On the Road with Dean telling Sal "We gotta go and never stop going till we get there," despite no certain destination in mind.

If you know any recent history of Gibraltar, then you know that Spain wants it back. What I didn't know, despite a life-long interest in geography (especially odd geography) is that the autonomous Spanish City of Ceuta comprises a similar territory to Gibraltar, sitting just nine miles across the Straits of Gibraltar on mainland Africa. Monte Hacho in Ceuta is a leading candidate for the title of the southern Pillar of Hercules (Gibraltar being the northern pillar). Ceuta, of course, is officially claimed by Morocco.

Some more ballpark figures, this time on food waste. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports:

"Throughout its production -- from the fertilizers that grow food, to the refrigeration that keeps it fresh longer, to the fuel that gets food from where it's grown to grocery stores to our homes -- uneaten food generates greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the output of 37 million passenger vehicles each year."

Schadenfreude? Perhaps, but unlike some researchers I never accepted that millennials were any different than preceding generations, having witnessed the hippies and flower children of the baby boom generation who, on the whole, eventually emerged as similar to generations before and after, with the possible exception that parents of boomers vaccinated their hippies-to-be with few ill effects while many of their own grandchildren, well, that's another story. Maybe acid and weed served as a prophylactic while opioids have not.

Profanity used infrequently and judiciously can punctuate otherwise stoic expression, oddly similar to space between the notes in music or the well-timed pause in oratorical discourse that can provide contrapuntal depth. But rights are often strongest when not exercised.

Inrix scorecard estimates that Los Angeles drivers spent on average 128 hours stuck in traffic in 2018. This makes LA the fifth most congested city in the U.S. after Boston (ranked 8th worst internationally); Washington, D.C. (19th worst int'l.); Chicago (23rd worst int'l.); and New York City (40th worst int'l.) based on peak highway commuting hours. Inrix ranked a total of 16 U.S. cities in the worst 100 internationally. London was ranked 6th worst with an estimated inner city travel time of 8 minutes, 3rd highest in the top 200, despite having road pricing in central London. LA saw no year over year change. The Inrix rankings are based on peak hour driving times and do not reflect average commuting times which would also include transit and other modes.

RPlate is a digital license plate. While many people could quickly offer several reasons why this would be something useful, I would think that an initial cost of $700 plus $84 per year in user fees would be a tad rich for saving oneself from the need to place a sticker on your metal plate each year. RPlate incorporates RFID and GPS, which provides location and routing services, undoubtedly duplicating what is already in your vehicle (anyone willing to pay $700 for an RPlate as well as $84 per year will likely have these features in their vehicle's dash already, not to mention on their Smart phone). RPlate can also serve as a LoJack device (assuming that the thief simply does not take off the RPlate and replace it with a stolen metal plate). RPlate also can display messages where metal plates display 'dmv.ca.gov' or "Oklahoma is OK' which will give the guy behind you an excuse when he rear-ends you ("Hey, I was trying to read the RPlate message that said something about not tailgating when ..."). Or RPlate can be used to display ads while the vehicle is parked (so your Bentley can display an ad for hemorrhoid cream earning you some spare change while you're sitting on your ...). And you give up what ever privacy remains in your life since your schedule and location are being recorded by the state, the company, and various hackers around the world. Did I mention $700 up front and $84 dollars per year?

A reviewer on the web site arstechnica.com concluded "there's no clear and compelling case to be made as to why most of us non-rich individuals need this fancy plate." A site user, GreenEggsAndCrack, said it better: "What a mind numbingly, ferociously stupid product."

One of my favorite lines in a text book was by Roger Creighton in Urban Transportation Planning (1970):

"It is almost as if people delight in having an area in which anybody can speculate because nobody knows anything about the subject."

"Architecture and urbanism, unlike other specialties, such as surgery and biology, are susceptible to being valued, criticized and even vetoed by persons without the most minimal knowledge of their most elemental principles."

Nominations for the 30th Annual California Transportation Foundation Transportation Awards are due this month. First and foremost, CTF is a deservedly well respected organization, but my disaffection with any kind of award will not let me pass on this. I would like to nominate, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, the California High Speed Rail Authority for diligence in self-imposed dire straits, the Governor of California for whatever momentous decision he has or hasn't apparently made, the US High Speed Rail Authority for unabated and unabashed euphoria in all related matters, and the media who can't seem to make heads or tails of anything that any of these other parties are doing ... or not doing. With honorable mention to those many related agencies and professional organizations for keeping things interesting.

Rice's Genevera Allen is concerned that the increased application of machine learning to big data is contributing to a reproducibility crisis in science. This appears to have also become a problem in research on human behavior, including travel behavior. On one hand, these sorts of studies are not at all common in transportation research (and rare is the call for such work). On the other hand, the complexity of human behavior and the resulting multiplicity of decision paradigms in a richness of environments suggests that which is incisive and profound might be only locally valid while attempts to generalize may not be so.

After seeing the unexpected occur in November 2016, in hindsight perhaps it was not so surprising. It was not one factor that determined the outcome, rather, it was having an opposing candidate that many perhaps equally disliked, a last straw on voters' backs regarding the standard political tripe being paraded as this is what you need, and the shallowly buried hate in all too many circles of immigrants, the lower classes, and any regulations and all taxes. One would think that most voters would see the outcomes of these decisions. One would think that voters should be able to separate their beliefs from candidates that don't actually have any. So I really should not be surprised at what appears to be happening: more extremist positions on the opposite side. I'm not suggesting that hatred of the lower class, immigrants, and regulation that fills the utopian dreams of today's reactionaries is equivalent with free college, free healthcare, and the other utopian dreams of today's progressives. But neither is a path that we should or even can follow, and any who promote such a path is little different from the other side, pulling on the fondest wishes of those whose dreams do not match reality. Death by fire or death by ice?

Is The New Green Deal unworkable? A letter to the LA Times [10Feb2019] says that similar claims were made about reaching the moon and building the interstate system. But large scale public infrastructure and technology efforts promised long-term public benefits with costs that were both measurable and funded by dedicated revenue streams. The New Green Deal? Maybe, deep evaluation of costs and benefits will be a minimum requirement of convincing anyone with the resources to support the cost side to agree to fund the needs of those on the benefit side. And climate change? The argument that we will all suffer immensely, if we even survive long enough to suffer, has not been enough to convince virtually anyone to begin the necessary sacrifices.

In this era of greater awareness of the haves and have nots, there is one thing that just doesn't sit well with me. While we clearly have issues of affordability and availability of housing, the blame is often placed on older, wealthier whites who benefit from rising home values while poorer, non-whites are in undesirable areas, paying more that they can afford in rent or being forced to move to outlying areas. There are two interrelated factors which are rarely mentioned but that have produced this result: wealth and time.

The post-war economic boom that began in the 1950s was in a country that was predominantly white (90 percent) and it should not be surprising that the benefits of the suburban and urban housing boom that followed accrued to whites, but primarily to middle and upper income whites. While there was and remains racism in the housing market, there is also racism in the employment market. This is as much, if not more, an income effect.

Witness California's Prop 13 which was created to protect homeowners who face declining income in retirement from being forced out of their homes. Whether you support this or not, and there are alternatives, it is not a racist policy. It is a policy that in the future will see benefits accruing to more non-whites as on-going population shifts continue. Setting a level playing field is important, but changing the rules of the game is not fair to the many who played on that field, planning for the future. This lack of awareness of the time dimension, looking back or looking forward, is a constant element of policies that seek rapid change. A second example related to housing is transportation. In California, progressives have decided that dense development is a needed rules change and those that played by the earlier set of rules, to invest in retirement by investing in housing, be damned. But that is another rant.

The league of extraordinary ladies and gentlemen at LA Metro have established the Office of Extraordinary Innovation. I'm not sure how to react. On one hand, there is a certain degree of pomposity in this choice; on the other hand, if their performance is as innovative as their name, then props to them. We should all pay attention.

"How can we be so naive?" says a letter writer in the LA Times (6 February 2019) supporting the President's position that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities. The president's intelligence chiefs provided public testimony that there was no evidence that Iran had undertaken necessary steps toward this end. The question is not "Who's right?" since we clearly should be leaning toward the worst case scenario. The question is "Why does the President think that North Korea is not developing nuclear capabilities?" and "Why does the President think that Russia is not interfering with our elections?" when all the evidence shows that, yes, they are?

Last week, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated on the Christian Broadcasting Network that she thinks "God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president." This clarifies my on-going questioning of how anyone could so consistently and blindly defend a person who so consistently and blindly "dismisses" people, ideas, and facts that are not in agreement with his views. In her decidedly Christian mind, she too is carrying out God's wishes. An LA Times OpEd (6 February 2019) by Randall Balmer discusses Sanders' comment and considers whether "God is on team Trump?". Recommended reading.

I think our reality is more fantasy than biblical. I'm reminded of "The Emperor's New Clothes" where an emperor is promised a magnificent new suit of clothes invisible to those who are unfit, dumb, or incompetent. We have an Emperor who has insisted that he is always right even when the naked truth is obviously different, an emperor surrounded by sycophants of similar cloth who praise and support him. Maybe fairy tales can come true?

One last day that I wasn't there. A life that will never again be. The best and last of all things has slipped from Pandora's Box.

Ann Coulter supposedly said that Trump will feel the "fear of God" if he doesn't build his wall. Given the lack of ethics and character throughout Trump's career, I don't think that God has anything to do with Trump's choices. Nor do I think that any God would be pissed off if said wall was never built. Coulter apparently added that Trump "could sell Ivanka Trump merchandise from the Oval Office if he would just build the wall." First, Trump already is selling his brand continuously from the Oval Office, even after two years with no progress on his biggest campaign promise. Second, if building a wall is sufficient reason to ignore all unethical and amoral behavior in the Oval Office, what is God's name does this say about Coulter and her ilk?

It takes a lot to draw my attention, even momentarily, from the LA Times (22 Jan 2019) front page headline "Metro looks at a drastic way to tame traffic" (I said momentarily, so see below for something momentous). A mere eight pages later, two opinion pieces appear in odd juxtaposition: a call for deregulating an unfair judicial bail and fine system followed by a call to regulate an unfair gun control system. The paper doth protest too much, methinks.

I do not support the judicial system the Times calls into question, a whirlpool of fines, court costs, and jail time for those too poor to swim, and I somewhat agree with the initial contention that this system is shaped by wealth and poverty. I also support, as the Times puts it, common sense gun control. But the devil, and our differences, are in the details.

First, I strongly object to the Times dismissing the behavior of an indigent who "received" three traffic tickets but couldn't afford the fines and thus continued to drive with a suspended license because "she had to." The choice was made when the traffic laws were violated, not once but three times, and not because the indigent "had to." Is the LA Times about to rationalize any act completed out of individually determined need as justifiable? (How about someone acquiring a black market gun and then using it in a crime because "they had to?") In each case, a string of ill-advised choices led the indigent to jail.

One might think that jail is an option to paying fines, but the Times is unclear in suggesting whether this is the case. Any judicial processing is costly, and these charges are typically passed to the responsible party. While, as the Times claims, these fees have no rehabilitation value, they are a way for the state "to pay for some things" (which is why we all pay car registration, driver's license fees, and fines, as well as similar charges for buying guns and hunting). Why do we need all these fees? Ay, there's the rub. Society should share the cost of all public systems, but the wealthy have leveraged position regarding income tax rates or property taxes. So the powers that be press for "user fees" to argue that those who enjoy the benefit should also bear the cost. People of all levels of wealth need things but often lack the means to have even true necessities. Appropriate non-regressive tax schemes will have those who gain the most from society pay the most to enjoy it. Until that time, courts will continue with the whirlpool, draining those that have little until they have nothing. (Rich man can ride and the hobo he can drown.) This is not an issue of race; it is a matter of wealth (which, yes, buys a system that favors the wealthy). But, most importantly, this does not excuse an unlawful act committed out of need. This is especially the case for traffic laws which exist to promote public safety. Traffic fines exist to deter future violations and as such need to be sufficient to achieve this goal. The fact that the courts, and many public institutions, are underfunded is a separate problem, albeit one that very much needs to be addressed.

Which brings me to the second editorial in today's LA Times: gun control. First, I support fundamental individual rights, and thus try to support organizations that fight to protect said rights. However, I find it increasingly difficult to do so with gun control, in general, and with the NRA, in particular. This situation is much more complex than many gun control advocates make it out to be, but there is more than enough room for compromise (if that is a concept that even remains in today's culture of winning). Any individual who wants to own a gun should be required to pass background checks and accept responsibility for the gun over its lifetime (including ensuring safety and reselling legally). Such regulations are little different from requiring driver licenses and car registrations, and penalties should exist to manage violations (and "had to" will never be an excuse).

There is a difference between the constitutional right to own a gun and the privilege of driving, but the practical importance of driving to most people in today's world is much, much greater than the theoretical importance of gun rights. This, however, does not mean that we should loosen regulations on a privilege while increasing them on a right, but it does mean that some very fundamental changes must be considered in today's fundamentally different world. It also means that if the LA Times won't exercise some restraint on their relatively progressive positions, then at least they should do so regarding the relative position of their opinions on the editorial page.

As promised, after the momentous albeit momentarily distraction, I now turn to the eye candy that initially drew my attention: The LA Times (22 Jan 2019) front page headline "Metro looks at a drastic way to tame traffic." In the same issue that calls for less regulation regarding fines (or was it more regulation regarding guns?), the argument is made (for the umpteenth time) that "congestion is so bad" (together now, "How bad is it?) that "politicians have no choice but to contemplate charging motorists more to drive." No, there are always choices. Here, for example, I could discuss the same equity issues discussed in the above companion piece), or the simple fact that traffic will only get so bad (really, have you ever been stuck in traffic for days?), or that the last argument was that more rail would address this problem (apparently not), or, did I mention that fines and regulations have significant equity impacts? But I will cut to the chase, to the only concept that no one seems to understand. Capacity.

When demand increases to the point that available supply (that is, capacity) is fully utilized, queues will grow. This is a point, at least, in which everyone is in agreement. Economists and engineers with tell you that there are but three reactions: decrease demand, increase supply, or simply ignore it. There is, however, more than one way to skin congestion demand, just as there is more than one way to skin congestion supply. And, magically, since no one seems to believe it, there is more to ignoring the problem than at first meets (even the trained) eye.

We've been down the supply road (pun intended). The economy grows, there are more trips, so build more capacity. At some point some pundits will say "You can't build your way out of congestion." This urban legend is always eventually discarded: southern California continues to expand rail systems, is contemplating new and expanded freeways, and is facing new and emerging transportation technologies. We've had limited experience with the demand side, including recent fuel tax and vehicle registration fee increases, subsidies for public transit, and HOT lanes on local freeways. "How's that hopey, changey thing working out for ya?" (damn, I swore that I would never quote Sarah Palin, but desperate times call for desperate actions). We got traffic. We got it, and we got it bad. Or, as former LA Mayor Villaraigosa deemed it, we've got traffic, congestion, and gridlock! The holy trinity of roads going bad.

So Metro thinks, we're already building like there's no tomorrow, so let's start pricing people out of their cars and, well, who cares what they'll do 'cause we're blinded by the cash flows that will let us build even more things that we can price to get more revenues so that we can build even more things ... You get the point. So will pricing work? Think about it. If it causes people who don't want to pay the new price to travel less, then, initially, there will be more space on the road (this will work, initially, on any congested facility or service, whether it be roads, transit, Uber, or other). More space is exactly what you get when you add more capacity. When you reduce queues, whether through supply mechanisms (capacity expansion) or demand mechanisms (pricing), you gain space. That is, you gain capacity. The reason people say "You can't build your way out of congestion" is that the very reason that there's congestion in the first place is that there are too many people who want to travel. Usually, many of these people will not make as many trips, or will travel at other times, or to other destinations, or by other means. As soon as queues dissipate, bang, these foregone trips will now be made. This is essentially true whether the capacity is gained by supply or by demand. While economics limits the amount of capacity that can be provided, it also limits the amount that people can afford to pay. Raising the price to maintain a desired level on traffic (congested or not) will increase traffic in other places and at other times, but will primarily reduce the ability of the less wealthy to travel. Remember that LA Times editorial about the whirlpool of traffic fines and jail time facing those less wealthy? I am forced to conclude that a corollary of the above urban legend is equally as true: "You can't price your way out of congestion."

Bringing me to the third option, which is sort of a blend of demand and supply options, but much cheaper. Don't do anything. Don't lay asphalt or rail to encourage people to travel. Don't price to discourage them. Just let it be. The standard travel forecasting process used by all transportation agencies starts with the so-called No Build alternative. Unfortunately, all trends that led to the current situation that necessitated the planning process in the first place are assumed to continue unabated. This means that the No Build alternative will almost always be the worst choice. But how do we know that trends will continue, especially when the planning argument is made that the decreased efficiency of travel will hurt the economy and encourage people to move to other areas? Since the No Build alternative is virtually never selected, we have little if any evidence that the trends will continue unabated. I think that the result will be something like a slowdown in the economy and growth in general, which is what pricing will eventually also accomplish. Because doing nothing is essentially pricing -- private sector pricing -- where land prices increase and serve as an upper limit on congestion. And on growth.

Growth is, at least initially, something that is wanted by some people, most governments, and all businesses. At some point, growth brings externalities, such as congestion, air quality issues, and expensive housing. Supply strategies can address congestion (moving more people for similar costs), air quality (through better traffic flow), and housing (allowing the market to control it). But this too will pass. Growth is like cancer, thus, no long-term growth strategy will work by attempting to control the congestion symptom, whether by supply or demand. We must control the disease: growth.

Today's (17Jan2019) LA Times editorial "Newsom goes big on housing" makes some baseball analogies starting with not playing "small ball" and ending with "swinging for the fences." California is frequently out front with innovations in both the private and public sector despite (or because of) having a reach that exceeds its grasp. Some of Governor Newsom's first proposals address housing, directly, and transportation, indirectly. Newsom rightly states that housing (or, more broadly and correctly, land use) and transportation are inextricably linked. Thankfully, his recent words seem to be more carrot than stick, with any potential shift in transportation funding perhaps directed toward the transit side.

But no one seems to be considering the two large and related elephants in the room: growth and land use economics. Growth must be controlled, both geographically and in the absolute. Local areas have traditionally, and legally, controlled local growth. Uncontrolled growth is a cancer that will eventually be injurious if not fatal. And growth should be treated where it is trying to get a foothold: by and within the local communities.

If we're suffering from excess traffic, then it's because we have too many people who work, reside, and otherwise live their lives in communities throughout the state. Not everybody can live on the beach and on the hilltop, and the market controls this through pricing. In general, the farther one is willing to live from where they want to work, the cheaper the housing. There is much more to housing choice than just economics, just as there is much more in household travel and activity than just the commute to work. But the basic economics apply, and this transportation / land use relationship can be addressed outside the market by government intervention, via regulation or subsidy. Regulation must reflect the status quo (residential choice reflects the largest investment most households will ever make); subsidy must reflect the change in value over time. The former, similar to the situation for Proposition 13, is such that public outcry would limit many actions; the latter would likely require some sort of price control, so a unit could never be re-sold at a market price or the effective subsidy would be lost.

It's not just traffic that the Times incompletely questions. It's apparently difficult to attract skilled labor (I'm not sure who all those commuters are) and climate change is not being addressed unless we move everybody into "dense, walkable, bike-able, transit-friendly residential communities that will reduce driving and greenhouse gas emissions." If there was a market for such development, it would exist. I think electric vehicles and other technology innovations will have a bigger impact than trying to social engineer the masses.

The Times is correct is suggesting that "housing, transportation, and climate change goals are linked, and funding should be too." And some carrots can be effective, but sticks that pry into established communities will not create more diverse and effective solutions. Only creating new communities in the image envisioned can be successful (and if successful, we'll see other communities slowly evolving). Only in the editorial's last two paragraphs is the basic reality considered: there are many reasons for the current situation, and thus not a single solution, and there is the very fundamental problem of the state encroaching on local communities and attempting to control local land use. Sometimes swinging for the fences just does not make sense; sometimes a walk or a sacrifice does. Sometimes baseball analogies just don't make sense; sometimes they do.

In an LA Times OpEd (17 January 2019), Garry South, a California Democratic strategist, argues that a third political party is "not going to happen." With a vested interest in one of the two current parties, South attempts three arguments.

First, he claims that independent voters are not really independent in that they lean toward one of the two main parties. Polling questions, however, typically are posed precisely this way (do you lean democratic (liberal) or republican (conservative)) and virtually all media is dominated by this same misleading dichotomy (there are not just two alternatives at the ends of some linear scale). Moreover, "leaning one way" is not the same as not being independent and more likely reflects opinions on one or two key issues. November's midterms were not exemplary since those results were almost certainly driven by strong anti-Trump sentiments where many people voted both for the Democrat and against the Republican, regardless of specific political beliefs.

South's second point is even less pointed in that he concludes that people "register as No Party Preference because -- hello! -- they clearly don't want to belong to any political party" (since South knows their thinking so well, maybe we should just have him vote for them, too). Maybe it's because -- hello! -- these people just don't like the limited choice set (but that would not likely be considered by an inveterate party man). South's last point is basically the same argument: independent voters are the least engaged and least informed of all voters. I can see least engaged and thus least interested in the two current (and usually moving toward extremes) political platforms available.

An analogy is made to religious organizations. A really bad analogy. Millions of humans left the Catholic Church in the Reformation and formed the Protestant division of Christianity -- yes, new denominations! Americans who have continued to leave the Catholic Church fall into two groups: one, evangelicals, who have continued with the Reformation forming new churches (and often carrying significant political weight); the other are those who left traditional forms of religion altogether. This latter group of non-religious people may fall across all political divisions. Although it is oddly difficult in American society to not be associated with some formal religion, it is not the same for political parties. This is not an absence of faith or platform; rather, it a slowly emerging perspective in a complex world that has traditionally insisted upon dichotomies. Us or them. The next time you hear someone "frothing over the" lack of "prospect of a third party" it will be Gary South, them, or their ilk, discarding the opinions and the values of anyone who thinks differently.

The Week (18 January 2019) reports on a follow-up study by economists Alan Kreuger and Lawrence Katz who had concluded in a 2015 study that growth in the gig economy "would upend traditional work arrangements." The new work says that the predictions were off base due to, get this, the recession! The economy recovered and things started going back to "more familiar work arrangements." First, millennials were found to not be a different species, and now the economy is, well, same as it ever was ... same as it ever was ...

"And you may find yourself, behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house ... same as it ever was." (Talking Heads)

Honors are a good thing. Right? No one turns one down. Right? I've had a running discussion with a colleague about awards and honors, so I took notice when I saw a review of a book by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi entitled "The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success" (2018). Proposed are five laws (not guidelines) that govern recognition and rewards, beginning with one that I have always claimed true. In fields where differences in performance cannot be easily measured, networks drive recognition, and thus rewards. Once an individual is recognized by others, many others still are more likely to offer even further recognition. If an individual receives an award (and Barabasi's rule still applies to this initial recognition) and an email notice is sent to colleagues, then many if not most of them will extend congratulations using "reply all" instead of a direct reply. What follows are cascading collegial congratulations clogging your network.Such a system of elicited recognition rewards those who follow with praise by integrating them into the system and training them to continue playing by the same rules, which will increase the odds of their eventual recognition. Awards can be given and success may follow, but honor cannot be offered.

Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog, adds to the voices of concern regarding autonomous vehicles (AVs) in a LA Times OpEd tellingly titled "Rein in the robot cars, or humans will lose the right of way." I too hold concerns about the efficacy and time line for AVs, but let's start by realizing that humans, meaning pedestrians, lost the right-of-way, meaning roadways, about the same time that reins were first being used in cities. I don't know if humans had previously thrown rocks, slashed tires, or run off the road AV predecessors such as horses and cars, but most road rage has been car on car.

Court mentioned potential benefits of AVs but countered, criticizing "putting artificial intelligence in the hands of profit-driven corporations who will control life-and-death decisions." Court offers some new rules for AV development, which bear repeating:

1. Humans' ability to drive should not be restricted.
2. The programming needs to be transparent.
3. Cybersecurity must be a priority.
4. When in doubt, the carmakers should be liable.

These rules are not as simple as they appear but are a much better starting point than supposed ethical quandaries as to how an AV would prioritize safety of all road users (see Nonsense or Mayhem?).

The new Gov has pledged to build a big wall -- no, that was someone else -- has pledged to build a house for everyone. Well, not exactly. While campaigning (and let's face it, he was always going to win so such promises are not just campaign hot air) he pledged to build 3.5 million homes over seven year -- that's 500,000 per year -- in a state that has not built anywhere near that number in any year for many years. California already has policies to require home building targets in every region, but there is no enforcement power for areas which do not follow through. So the Gov wants to hold hostage state transportation funds. (This is sounding somewhat familiar -- some level of government is accused of not properly managing public resources so the new boss threatens to withhold unrelated funds?)

The Gov is ignoring the feasibility of building that much housing each year, ignoring economic considerations that are the primary factors influencing the housing market, ignoring stare decisis in local level planning and approval for housing and land use, and (geez, there it is again, that vague feeling that someone else is also doing this) trying to change a lot of things he doesn't like by fiat, putting the cart before the horse.

"Just don't call this a dorm" reads the LA Times (6 January 2019) headline (quack). When the developers slather marketing jargon such as "co-living" (quack), it's no different from a magician's sleight of hand. Comparisons to Uber and AirBnB make for further smoke and mirrors (quack) as if occasional rides and vacation stays are the same thing as one's personal residence. But then many people like magic acts, and many even seem to respond to marketing ploys, and many seem happy giving away valuable data to be able to watch overly cute kittens (never ducks) on their smart phones. The units mentioned go for at least $2 grand per month: no chump change but apparently cheaper than the going rates in the neighborhood: you know, sort of like college dormitories (quack). And for that princely sum one gets a private bedroom and access to shared a living room, kitchen, and other communal spaces, such as a bathroom (quack).

What all this portends to the smoke and mirrors of the shared economy (hey, no one ever said equally shared) remains to be seen. Are people so dim, or so desperate, to accept this nouveau standard of living? Perhaps this is voodoo economics 2.0 or maybe it's just society getting its ducks in order.

In the Transfers eZine, Brown, Mukhija, and Shoup consider the impacts of converting garages to second housing units. While thoughtfully considering the political opposition of local officials fearing new residents creating parking problems, the authors state that this fear is exaggerated since a "study of single-family homes in Los Angeles found that 75 percent of garages were used to store old furniture or other household goods, not cars." If the status quo is that the garage is not used for parking by the household, then the driveway or on-street parking is. If the garage is converted to a second housing unit, the added residents can only increase the number of cars that need to be parked on or near the property. If the garage was used to park cars, then so much worse would be the resulting parking demand. This is the parking fear shared by many. It is not likely exaggerated.

At some point, housing demand, and associated activity and travel demands, may change and parking may no longer be an issue (although other considerations mentioned by the authors will remain). But such a point is not now, not soon, and not likely to have its initial impacts in lower income neighborhoods where second unit garage conversions are most likely. Housing is a problem, but one that with transportation is due to too many people, not too many garages. Besides, where would we put all that stuff stored in the garage?

In today's extremist version of democracy, the term politically correct is no longer politically correct (referring to words or actions that could offend sensibilities). Politicians, and as Pres T would say "there's good people, on both sides," is defined by the extremists who are using their words and actions as political leverage to gain the upper ideological hand. Maybe PC needs to be renamed Socially Correct, but we see also extremists in the general public, facilitated by social media, being decidedly not PC. Thus, what is considered PC should reflects the norms of political discourse, which is decidedly not yesterday's PC. So what term, if any, makes sense?

Paul Krugman (NYT 18 Dec 2018) says "If these people don't regard themselves as servants of the law first, partisans second, if they won't subordinate their political goals to their duty to preserve the system, laws become meaningless and only power matters."

This "cutting the cake" rule should also apply to cabinet posts. Saying that the fox will guard the hen house pales with appointments like Pruitt to the EPA or Mulvaney to the CFPB. Such appointments are little different from appointing Putin as head of National Security. For cabinet posts, we might reverse the appointment process where the administration continues to nominate but only the minority party approves. The intent of these changes is to remove extremists from the process. Jury selection rules might be applied so that there is also a limit to the total number of rejections for both judges and cabinet appointments.

"Underachieving in school can prepare you to overachieve in life." So says Adam Grant in the New York Times (11 December 2018). I'm a fan of paradox but most conclusions such as Grant's refer to the exceptions rather than the rules. As such, it is good advice only when exceptional people follow it (and exceptional people rarely take such advice). Those who may fare best by following the rules may instead figure "hey, the hell with getting A grades." One can seek to achieve both: following (most of) the rules and breaking those where creativity, leadership, and other unconventional skills present a better lesson.

What's needed first is better basics in K-12 education. In addition to the socialization of K-12, there are two critical educational aspects. First and foremost is "learning how to learn." It is the process and not the facts that is most important. Second, it is the interconnections of what you learn more than, again, the specific facts. Looking back over many decades, it is shocking how much time was devoted to simple rote reciting of facts, especially when this was repeated year after year; it is equally shocking how little interactive learning was present. The limited interactive learning was more often than not associated with writing, editing, and re-writing essays, working with both the teacher and fellow students. Virtually never was this done for math and science when papers might be exchanged for grading as only right or wrong. Learning is a process and the process needs to be taught. I think this could address the conformist view on what is a good student.

LA's Vision Zero "seeks to eliminate all traffic deaths in Los Angeles by 2025." This goal, while admirable, is nevertheless near-sighted. A broader vision would include eliminating many other traffic thorns that make life aggravating and occasionally unbearable. How about no more traffic jams; no more sudden red lights due to a single vehicle arriving on a low volume cross-street and getting an immediate green; no more slow drivers in the fast lane; no more lines at the DMV; and no more missed transfers or full buses passing by. We need policies and procedures to reduce lost time (especially the extreme loss of time of a fatality).

David Ulin (LA Times, 20Dec2018) reports that most Los Angeles fatalities are pedestrians walking outside crosswalks. Why is it that peds accept jaywalking as something that peds do but they somehow can't tolerate a car not making a full stop or even encroaching on a crosswalk? Besides the relative risk, what really is the difference between two types of people acting in their own self-interest (at least in the short run)?

Emilia Crotty, an inveterate New Yorker who heads Los Angeles Walks, apparently wants to improve LA so that we can walk and take public transit as 'easily' as in New York City. What snowball's chance would I have of moving to NYC and trying to get more people to drive, allocate more parking space, and change land use to accommodate me and my ilk? Walkers will say, duh, zero, because everyone prefers a world without cars and parking, and think of all the money we would save (i.e., money that we would need to pay our share of the rent in our walk-up one-room apartment), not to mention lives? Mark Twain said that usage of the royal we should be limited to "kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms" but I think that pedestrians and people with auto-related phobias have self-appointed to that list.

Ulin quotes Ray Bradbury (who I believe never had a driver's license and, while I love his fiction, his reality was decidedly more NYC than LA) from Fahrenheit 451 "where drivers actively attempt to strike pedestrians for sport." (C'mon, where's the sport in that?) In 2025, there will still be over 30,000 fatalities on US highways, there will still be peak hour congestion on our roads (and transit systems), and our traffic control system will be about what it is today. Changes are coming, however, with electric, autonomous, and shared use vehicles, imminent facility pricing, evolving land use policies, economic restructuring of employment concepts, and other changes that have many societal and economic forces pushing them. But even these changes will be slow, if for no other reason than there is no big gap being filled such as was the case when cars were first added to a landscape where walking dominated well over a century ago. Most of us look through distorted lens; some say we all do.

Engineering is usually considered applied science, but it's just as much an art. Many (if not most) people, however, think of engineers as, well, nerds. While artists and architects often practice behind diverse sartorial, tonsorial, and other sorts of "-orials" self-presentation fashions, most engineers don't. I'm not sure why, but even the tech industry has done little more than to allow employees to continue with their student fashion habits, where as engineering, law, and most other areas of professional (i.e., licensed) practice seem locked into traditional appearances (we did do away with the powdered wigs). But few (if any) engineers seem to be complaining. However, Pew (19 Dec 2018) posts a blog by Jenni Bergal entitled "Artists and Engineers: A New Relationship" which stated:

"While transportation agencies typically are stodgy behemoths, slow to adopt changes and filled with engineers who rely on data and scientific principles, some numbers-minded officials have been trying to think creatively."

Bergal says that a growing number of cities have hired "visual artists, musicians and performers to work on small- and large-scale projects that deal with transportation." These artists "have designed colorful crosswalks, created displays about historical events at highway underpasses, and put on performances to draw people to neighborhoods disrupted by light rail construction." While such artsy-fartsy projects are interesting, and maybe have more than just artistic value, these should not be mistaken for necessary transportation engineering work. If the streets smell like traffic, then these traffic smells should be addressed (alternative fuel buses, electric vehicles, non-motorized transport options, etc.). Applying a perfume is not a solution, and some would say that it's another problem layered on top of the first. At best, these are distractions, and while they have their place, they are still distractions.

The article does consider some needed revisions in both engineering (and allied fields) education and professional practice. Los Angeles artist Alan Nakagawa is quoted "The engineers said they're trained not to tell stories, to be objective. We were telling them to be subjective. It was an amazing moment -- a meeting of the minds." Many transportation engineering and most transportation planning programs do address the objective and subjective aspects of interactions between the public and transportation infrastructure and operations. Public participation is a required and valuable component of all public transportation projects. Professional practice in transportation engineering and planning requires professionals training that reflects both art and science. It's a dessert topping and a floor wax.

An Sacramento Bee headline states: "California's bullet train is pumping billions into the Valley economy. So why is it so unpopular? A resident in support of the project says "It's a sense of accomplishment; my kids can see this 20 years from now. It's providing jobs for the community. We help stimulate the economy. Now my family has medical, has dental." Upton Sinclair famously quipped "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Pouring $10 billion into a region, whether for a bullet train, or a water delivery, storage, and conservation plan, or just digging a (really) big hole and then filling it back in, will have the same economic impact on the region (if not an equivalent sense of accomplishment). It's hard to see a different perspective other than the one that feathers your nest. A Los Angeles Times/USC poll earlier this year showed that 64 percent of Valley residents were opposed to the project with nearly half of Californians similarly inclined. The opposition reasons are manifold, not the least of which is the continued misinformation on the ultimate cost and benefits of the project.

After Trump's ego-driven decision to force out Defense Secretary Mattis after his scathing letter of resignation, Laura King and David Cloud (LA Times, 24 Dec 2018) quote acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney: "He's not going to be an ordinary president. That's not what people wanted when they elected him." First, the outstanding majority of people did not elect him: while 63 million people did vote for Trump, over 73 million voted for someone else (and Clinton had 3 million more votes than Trump). But even if Trump won by a plurality, or even a majority, he still represents all Americans and not just those who voted for him. This polarization of politics cannot be more clear in comments such as that from Mulvaney, where any win is treated as an absolute, a mandate of sorts, and that the winner somehow has been approved by the "people" (meaning all Americans) to enact anything that only supporters (the minority who voted for Trump) actually wanted. To suggest that "the people" actually want ego and ignorance trumping shared governance and depth of knowledge, both implying input and discussion from many perspectives, including supporters, detractors, and those many in the middle, is simply the deception of a con man's smoke and mirrors.

The Boring Company's tunnels could be either a boon or a bane, so says Laura Nelson in the LA Times (21 Dec 2018). While a potential benefits of these efforts is improved tunneling technology and methods, it is quite unclear to me whether this would be a boon or a bane to traffic. In general, any increase in capacity, whether it be conventional lanes, public transit, or new technologies, will either reduce congestion in the absence of growth in trip-making, accommodate growth if matched to system improvements and changes in behavior (such as changes due to pricing), or accommodate some growth but still increasing congestion. It makes little difference what the modes are. The critical issue, beyond technical feasibility, is what will the cost of a new transportation system be, and who will pay for it (and who will pay for maintenance or re-design of the current system)?

My biggest take-away from the article, however, is that many opinions are being expressed as fact. The article quotes an expert about the possible use of tunnels for freight transport from the LA/LB ports but the standard container wouldn't fit in a 12 foot circular tunnel. Another expert comments on California's love affair with the automobile (it's most people and it's an economic choice, not a love affair) and mentions the "staggering" costs, but ignores the staggering benefits, that highway transportation has provided to accessibility of both people and freight. Congestion results from uncontrolled growth and equally impacts highway and transit systems. Air quality, climate change, and traffic fatalities will likely be addressed with electric and autonomous cars, effectively keeping the baby while tossing the bath water. I have serious concerns about the feasibility of the overall system concept (not the tunneling technology) but I wonder how these experts would have reacted if the concept was for a public transit system instead of what Musk has proposed? Think in terms of automated guideway transit systems, common in US airports, that move large volumes of passengers between terminals. This seems more like what Musk has in mind for Union Station to Dodger Stadium. We should keep out eyes wide open and avoid any tunnel vision.

Elon Musk and the Boring Company claim a tunnel capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour (vph). As a reference, a freeway lane has a capacity of about 2,000 vph. Perhaps in a single tunnel, these figures can be achieved but what about access and egress (will the vertical shafts also handle 4,000 vph) or changing tunnel routes (a problem also associated with Hyperloop)? Even if this is possible, what about the queues that will form on the surface as potential tun-travelers head to portal locations? In any case, I think that this system could function as a premium service that would be appropriately tolled and leave the freeways free to those folks (the Eloi) who have 24 hours per day to travel but not the disposable income of those in the tunnels (the Morloks). Who'd of thunk that this could be such a Wells-thought-out concept?

NIMBY. We all think we know what this acronym represents, but there is more than meets the eye. First, we have the plaintiff, who's the one who shouts "J'accuse" to the selfish bastards who, in the plaintiff's opinion, don't really care about anything except their own personal impacts. These second parties are thus charged as defendants and face an uphill battle because they're, well, umm, selfish bastards. Crying NIMBY is the ideal way for any such plaintiff to turn the tables on any prospective defendant who will disagree with the plaintiff's position. It's not relevant whether the defendant is right or wrong, since they now have been labeled a NIMBY and whatever their position was, well, it's just NIMBY (fake news?). In general, this makes anyone with a conservative perspective a NIMBY when, in reality, it's simply normal human behavior. Unfortunately, so is being an asshole and pointing one's finger in an equivalent act of self-interest for something to be located in someone else's backyard.

Rounded to the nearest integer as rates per hour, these figures are in the ballpark (or out in left field which, technically, could be closer to home, right?) based on domestic estimates over the last few years. Heart disease (69 deaths per hour), cancer (67 deaths per hour), smoking (55 deaths per hour), strokes (15 deaths per hour), opioids (8 deaths per hour), firearms (4 deaths per hour), and motor vehicles (4 deaths per hour). A ballpark estimate of the average cost of a traffic fatality is $1.1 million (as a reference the average annual salary of a professional playing in a ballpark is a bit over $4 million). A different form of big data?

Two odd things about speed limits: first, everyone knows what they are; second, nobody knows how they are set. Now the first thing may not seem to be that odd to many people but it's hard to think of anything else that enjoys such a universal awareness other than death and taxes. While the second thing would not seem that surprising to many, what is surprising at least to me is the range of misunderstanding as to how it's done.

A letter to the LA Times (13 December 2018) marked it up to legislative stupidity, a reasonable but incorrect explanation. State legislatures leave these decisions to transportation professionals who monitor and analyze speed distributions. Limits are set based on the 85th percentile of observed speed. Studies show that drivers select a speed based on traffic levels (vehicles plus other road users), road geometric characteristics, and a range of ambient conditions. Statistically, very few drivers exceed 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed. Typically, about 75 percent of drivers are within 5 mph of the 85 percentile speed. Despite a few claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that drivers act collectively by speeding to effectively break the law to increase the speed limit.

That letter writer remarked how "cities enjoy professional policing by trained men and women who are trying to keep bad folks under some control." The implication, incorrect of course, is that there are no "trained men and women trying to keep bad folks under some control" via professional engineering. He then blames Democrats.

One might have thought that automobile manufacturers were behind efforts to cut Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. But, no, they appear to just want the rules well defined to minimize design and production disruptions. Turns out that it's Big Oil who's covert campaign aims to rewrite emission rules to, well, keep selling gasoline. In their defense, I guess no one is really that surprised. Just look for the smoking gun, whether it's a cigarette or a tail pipe.

The Chicago Transit Authority recently approved (ASCE Smart Brief, 13 Dec 2018) a $1.2 billion contract that it deemed "its most expensive project ever." That's "most expensive," not "most extensive," or most important, or any other superlative. Just the most expensive. Years ago in a Caltrans annual report, each District had a page to feature an aspect of their year in review. District 12 had a half page photo of their new Traffic Management Center (you know, a "mission control" thing that any self-respecting transportation organization needed for future success). Of all the superlatives that could have been used, whether it be reduced delay, improved safety, or even new problem solving technology, District 12 superimposed on the photo the large font banner exclaiming "$12 Million Dollars." The input; not the output.

The 2011's "The Information," James Glieck writes about a "hellish world, devoid of grace" that is "a world of information glut and gluttony; of bent mirrors and counterfeit texts; scurrilous blogs, anonymous bigotry, banal messaging. Incessant chatter. The false driving out the true." He concluded that "that is not the world I see." Seven years later I think that he would not feel the same.

The recent sale of David Hockney's Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) for $93 million reminds me first that some people have too much money. What are the real benefits and costs of economic art appreciation? How about professional athletics: the teams, the owners, the media, and the players? Maybe it's not surprising that proposals such as college-for-all (free or otherwise), Universal Basic Income, and single payer health care are discussed in a society with so much wealth but it all really comes down to distribution. While socialism is absolutely not the answer, neither is capitalism. The later system can certainly work but only when capitalists are not the same people as those who wield the (increasingly) invisible hand of government.

To those who have provided a steady stream of media soundbites as to why millennials, compared to previous generations, were driving less, shunning cars and driver's licenses, and exhibiting a reduced level of mobility, in general, it looks increasingly like it was just "the economy, stupid!"

CBS News (26 Oct 2018) reported online that a study by Burning Glass, an employment data company, found that English and liberal arts majors were less likely to be underemployed than many occupational majors such as business and biology. Engineering majors had the lowest level of underemployment but overall 43 percent of college grads were underemployed in their first job. It was not clear whether underemployment status was employer-based or self-reported by graduates.

Engineering graduates are usually aware that there is substantial further learning required when they get their first job, and they are also aware that employers not only expect this but are looking for graduates who show that they can effectively and efficiently continue to learn on the job. Most starting engineers would therefore likely think that they are not over-prepared and thus not under-employed. What does this say about English majors?

The emergence of autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, and shared mobility has been deemed the Three Revolutions by Dan Sperling but it has been noted, recently by Blair Schlecter (Eno Transportation Weekly (8 October 2018)), that "one of these is not like the others." The first two reflect distinct, composite technologies that may or may not succeed, but being independent of significant traveler behavioral changes would be more Evolution than Revolution. Sharing is a horse of a different color: despite what one has learned in kindergarten, sharing has not been a dominant outcome when a real choice set exists. Schlecter claims that sharing is why "we might reduce the amount of space devoted to parking and roads and reduce congestion" and thus is the "most important question." If any real level of sharing is realized, then it would indeed be a Revolution. To what degree we could, or should, social engineer such a revolution is an even more important question.

In his book MicroTrends, Marc Penn discussed an 'explosion of choice' and related this to a triumph of the Starbucks economy over the Ford economy:

"Whereas in the Ford economy, the masses were served by many people working to make one, uniform product, in the Starbucks economy, the masses are served by a few people working to make thousands of customized, personalized products."

There are 33 million people living in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The crime rates and poverty rates in these countries are among the highest in the world. These problems have become worse over the past decades, in part due to the drug trade and corresponding corruption of politics, the police, and the military. This does not mean that people are any different than those in the US or South America in terms of family values, religion, or personal hygiene. They have grown up in a country with a culture that is violently being taken from them so it's no surprise that they carry flags and sing their national anthem. If you eliminate the violence and crime, most of them would not be trying to leave.

The only people who are worried about this are conspiracy theorists, Fox News, and Donald Trump. With all the positive things happening in the US regarding the economy and low unemployment, why is Donald Trump only focused on this caravan? When is the last time you saw a country's military stringing razor wire along a border (for me, it was Berlin during the cold war, and that was an attempt to keep people in). The only people that are firmly in support of Trump, even in spite of their cringing at his words, are hard core middle and upper class whites who are in fear of their world changing (in large part since Trump and others keep telling them they should be in fear). This is why many Republicans are worried about the election. All they had to do was focus on the economy, but Trump does not understand, or care, about real matters. If there is a conspiracy in organizing this caravan (remember, it's a very small portion of total monthly immigrants), then it's probably Donald Trump who's behind it.

To date, the development of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology has been oddly but welcomingly devoid of anthropomorphism. Only in the philosophy of autonomous behavior has seepage been evident. NPR (26 Oct 2018) reports yet another experiment posing moral dilemmas associated with AVs. A paper in Nature reports results of a quite extensive survey that in general concluded that people everywhere hold the same moral sentiments: an AV in dilemma mode should "spare the young over the old, spare humans over animals, and spare the lives of many over the few." The researchers conclude that AV operating systems should take moral preferences into account. The degree to which general moral preferences hold priority is a question that needs to be addressed, but one that is rarely addressed with any technology issues. Should we stop burning fossil fuels, potentially saving the planet but dooming many developing economies and millions of humans to a quality of life that has been vastly surpassed in developed countries? But here we have a more specific question: Whose moral preferences should be considered? The population in general, the manufacturer or their tech programmers, fleet or roadway owner/operators, insurance companies, vehicle occupants, pedestrians and other parties? As I have suggested before (see Nonsense or Mayhem?), the appropriate technology step is to build AVs which operate in a manner where they do need to address anyone's moral preferences.

In a 2002 essay, David Gelernter peered 50 years into the future of computer technology. Of more interest to me than his vision (and his arguably controversial perspectives) was his set of laws that would guide these technology changes:

1. Software not hardware determines the state of the art and the pace of change.
2. A thing is replaced with something better, not something newer.
3. Tangible gains always trump intangibles.
4. Technology is a means, not an end.

The evolution from vinyl to cassettes to CDs to streaming for music had benefits but also costs (and note that 8-track was not included). A similar evolution took place for video, but not so much for books (for bookstores, yes, but not for books). Cell phones exploded not as a replacement for a land line but as a personal assistant that was also a camera, a music player, a browser, and much else. And texting has replaced audio phone calls for much communication. These are things that are better.

Gelernter used books as a tangible example. Books have tangible benefits, but shopping online for books trumps a bookstore. Gelernter makes a similar argument for education, predicting a demise of brick and mortar campuses with the evolution of online courses. If students were sufficiently regimented to learn on their own, then this might be the case, but I think that many of Gelernter's college intangibles are quite the opposite: it's the degree and not the education that is intangible, and for most, it is the process of (some level of) focused learning in a world full of optional pursuits that is tangible. This pursuit is initially an unconscious process and perhaps for this reason one does not see technology as an alternative. Oddly, maybe attending college is to online education as cell phones are to landlines.

To many people, technology is a lot like sex and Chinese food with the consumer soon wondering what's next. So what prognostications did Gelernter forward? Of particular interest to me was his conclusion that cities will (to Gelernter somewhat regrettably) become irrelevant, but that driving will increase because "we like to drive." Maybe the laws themselves are changing.

"College professors used to be badly paid and worth it." PJ O'Rourke

Any planning process begins with a vision, a vision that usually defines an ideal that can be translated into broad goals and achievable objectives. But what if that ideal is, in itself, not achievable? Does a wishful vision (e.g., world peace) truly motivate participants, or would it be too easy to scoff and discard (Frey & Henley's "freedom, well that's just some people talkin'")? I came across a 2001 Vision 2050 report from The Federal Transportation Advisory Group, with an impressive members list and a wishful, national transportation vision:

"An integrated national transportation system that can economically move anyone and anything, anywhere, anytime, on time; a transportation system without fatalities and injuries; and a transportation system that is not dependent on foreign energy and is compatible with the environment."

The term "jaywalker" apparently has a Central New York origin story, going back to the dawn of the 20th century, as a derogatory expression for a "country bumpkin" in awe of the big city but oblivious to the threat of mixed traffic on urban roads. The dawn of the 21st century seems to have its own version of jaywalkers, podwalkers, or pedestrians wearing earbuds listening to podcasts and oblivious to everything else. They are best viewed blindly entering crosswalks, with earbuds blocking ambient audio input and eyes seeing only i-screens or the pavement in front of them, but always content in their knowledge that motor vehicle codes give right-of-way to pedestrians in crosswalks (yet blissfully unaware that such codes warn pedestrians not to enter crosswalks unless it is safe to do so). In 1899, Henry Bliss became the first domestic pedestrian fatality after being struck by an automobile after exiting a street car. Maybe we should produce a podcast explaining these dangers ...

There is no shortage of misleading and/or irrelevant political fliers that litter our mailboxes this time of year (even more so with several different party registrations in my household) but some seem particularly odd. I received two today funded by The Lincoln Club of Orange County, a State PAC and strong conservative voice. One said "Who do our firefighters endorse?" My response was "Who in the f^@k cares who our firefighters endorse?" Firefighters are public servants; very important public servants due to the skills and knowledge they possess relative to fighting fires and selected other elements of public safety. Their political opinions are no more relevant than those of any other citizen. The fliers were in support of specific candidates for the Irvine city council, but it is not clear how many of the firefighters in question even live in the City. The badge on the flier is for the IAFF, the firefighters labor union, a lobbyist for firefighters first and foremost. If there is a particular candidate who has a record of not supporting the need for fire safety, then by all means call this out. But who doesn't support the need for fire safety and appreciate those who serve? The city council runs the city that employs the firefighters so it would make sense that IAFF would support candidates that are more likely to support IAFF and local firefighters that they represent. But none of this identifies what candidates are qualified for our city council. Such fliers only identify the candidates most favored by the political party or the associated PACs that paid for the flier: the Republican Party and The Lincoln Club. Obviously, both parties and all PACs (by definition) support their preferred candidates. But to tie the chances that your house may burn down or that someone in your family may succumb to an injury if you don't vote for the candidate that a political party supports, for political reasons (any of many political reasons), is simply unethical.

Sometime back I read an article by Matt Krupnick in the Hechinger Report (9 April 2018) about Higher Education Deserts, defined as areas more than 25 miles from a college campus and with insufficient internet speeds to study online. We have a very big country with people residing in sparsely populated areas, usually by choice. After careful scrutiny, it appears that Orange County, California has no national parks (certainly nothing compared to a Yosemite or a Grand Canyon), although we do have very nice beaches along a very big ocean. Since we have over 3 million people living in a rather small county (second densest county in California), we have great internet service and several nearby institutes of higher education (nearby unless one considers the congestion and parking delays associated with 3 million people making a total of over 12 million trips each day).

But the world is not a level playing field. This is unfortunate for young people who lack the knowledge and means of leaving such deserts, but there are choices, and even deserts, of all sorts, have their benefits. But why do people think that every place should be an intersection of Starbucks, gas stations, and fast food restaurants, all with internet access? It's probably more difficult to flee a city with all the trappings of modern life than to flee a small town in the midst of a "desert."

Recent analysis by USC's Dowell Myers suggests that homeownership rates "do not actually reflect current demand for home buying, and a downturn in the rates for young adults does not imply falling interest in home buying." What? Millennials aren't all renting downtown and eschewing drivers licenses, fundamentally changing the future of life as we know it? Apparently the cognoscenti didn't understand the erratic art of growing up, the impacts of recessions, and human behavior in general. Not to mention trends and lagged variables. What other explications may be premature?

An alternative perspective on Managed Lanes.

1. The objective of HOV lanes was to encourage ridesharing, increasing vehicle occupancy to reduce the total number of vehicles.
2. The performance of HOV lanes has always varied by general location and time of day, but complaints are oddly more intense for successful (higher volume) lanes.
3. Where HOV lanes are under-utilized, regions have promoted other users for HOV lanes, such as low emission vehicles or, more recently, SOVs that pay a toll.
4. With multiple user classes increasing lane volumes, USDOT introduced the concept of degradation as a means to protect, not destroy, HOV lanes. To address degradation, local agencies could increase occupancy requirements, restrict access of other user classes (including tolled vehicles), or add additional HOV capacity.
5. Capacity is expensive so adding a second HOV lane has rarely been proposed.
6. California will begin restricting green vehicle access to HOV lanes in 2019, eliminating a key incentive supporting state policy goals of more green vehicles.
7. Policies that favor replacement of HOV lanes with HOT lanes, when all studies suggest that a minimum HOV occupancy of 2 would degrade lane performance below the level promised by the SOV toll being charged, effectively eliminate the lane as an HOV facility (there are too few 3 occupant HOVs in congested periods). HOT facilities always require a second lane but the funding for construction (but not for the lane's right-of-way) can be built into the toll structure.
8. A toll-based funding mechanism is adjustable but permanent, even after capital costs have been covered, to maintain the desired performance level.
9. A comparable control has never been considered in the discrete math of occupancy, but technology that enabled HOT lanes via fool-proof transponders will soon be able to measure occupancy, with seat sensors installed to control airbags being able to provide occupancy, and the same centralized accounts that bill HOT users based on monthly use can bill HOV users based on monthly average occupancy. An occupancy of 2 may overload the lanes, and an occupancy of 3 may leave them underutilized, while an occupancy of, say, 2.5 may be just perfect (where 2.5 is the average occupancy of the vehicle over the month).
10. In fact, all lane users, HOV, HOT, or green, would be billed the same way, based on the number of trips, time-of-day, occupancy, and even emissions.

California once again leads in the implementation of energy policy with recent legislation requiring 100 percent clean energy by 2045. Unfortunately, as has always been the case in transportation, decision makers are addressing the symptoms and not the disease. Whether it be water scarcity, air quality and climate change impacts of transportation and energy production, or growing housing problems, the problem is simply too many people. Not everyone can live on the beach or on a mountain top with a view. And not everyone can live in California.

Outraged that members of the executive branch are serving to hinder ideological policies and decision-making (out of patriotism or vigilantism, depending on your slant)? Me too. Who do they think they are? Supreme Court justices?

One often reads about some rare species, a Weedsportus Multiflorus Semi-annual Geponica, which now survives in only a few places and which draws what, to many, seems to be an inordinate amount of attention about whether or not it should be protected. One side will always trivialize the value of the species, sometimes in the big picture, but more often relative to the potential loss of a commercial opportunity. I'm virtually always on the side of the species in question, but that's not today's bone to pick. There's another 'species' that is being treated more like a nuisance, an invasive species of sorts, that appears to be thriving but whose legal rights are under threat. Most pundits, CEOs, politicians, and people of privilege refer to this species as 'The Public.'

Who is The Public? It's our nation's general population, though not endangered in any biological sense, seems to be very endangered as a critical element of, well, public life. The genesis of these comments was a speech by Dan Elwell, the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, regarding drone technology. Elwell concluded that drones are "going to do for aviation what the internet did for information." That sound bite is worthy of discussion and thought, but not here. Rather, my focus is Elwell's other comment that "the public has very real and justified questions about these aircraft. And their concerns can't just be swept under the rug." We frequently hear such comments about public concerns but, ironically given the other sound bite, such comments contain virtually no information, precisely because we hear them frequently but rarely is there any real concern for the subject of the comment, The Public. The privileged refer to The Public the same way that they speak of endangered or threatened species, in a condescending manner, an obstacle to be surmounted. Each day government and business is less about The People and more about the government and business as the actual citizens of an evolving economic-political system. The most worrisome aspect of this is that The Public, very much like endangered and threatened species, has virtually no idea that they have become at best marginalized if not irrelevant and at worst threatened or endangered. O brave new world that has such people in it!

Addendum (19 August 2023): My comment above about the "loss of a commercial opportunity" seem more relevant today with "sub-species" of "The Public" being behaviorally modified to form political crops that are sown and reaped via technologies such as social media for the benefit of their designers. The implications on the social evolution of the species are unknown.

"It's not the honors and prizes of life which ultimately nourish our souls.
It's the knowing that we can be trusted, that we never have to fear the truth,
that the bedrock of our very being is good stuff."
Mister Rogers

Reports are that domestic Public Private Partnerships (P3) have decreased significantly under the current administration. Perhaps it's a good time to review the P3 'business model.' The Public Sector funds transport infrastructure and services with a combination of user fees and general revenues, with user fees being fuel excise taxes and, increasingly, tolls. The Private Sector would fund via user fees, typically tolls only. Let's assume a future where infrastructure is funded by only user fees.

The current model is that the public sector identifies, approves, and funds a project, then calls upon the private sector to plan, design, and build public infrastructure, and in some cases to maintain and operate it, including toll collection. While right-of-way currently remains public, project costs represent funds that flow predominantly to the private sector. So the public borrows money, paid back with toll revenue, which flows to the private sector (including a fixed profit built into the contract process).

In a P3, the private sector would borrow money and pay it back with toll revenue, which also must cover maintenance and operations. And the fourth P, profit. The revenue stream from these projects is the only reason for P3s. Perhaps any claimed efficiencies of the private sector justify the profit, but the public sector effectively gives up public right-of-way (at least for the project's financial life) and effectively takes the risk, while the private sector profits. There have even been P3 proposals where the private sector asks the public sector to borrow the funds to obtain better interest rates (deep public pockets go a long way toward better financing). Where is the advantage? I, for one, cannot see any public advantage.

The term 'Managed Lanes' generally refers to active involvement in facility operations but in practice it usually mean toll lanes. The operational essence of a dynamically priced toll lane is to set tolls to produce desired lane volumes. Higher volumes will drop speed below what is expected by those willing to pay a particular toll; lower volumes will reduce revenue. Depending on local market demand, tolls and thus revenue will vary. What will remain constant, potentially forever, is lane volume. The agency effectively says that the lane in question, and the public real estate upon which it sits, will only be used by the defined volume, comprising those who can afford to pay the toll (or who can pass on the cost).

Let's ignore the obvious equity issues, and also ignore the theoretical claim that all users, even those not in managed lanes, could be better off. If this is such a good idea, then should we not 'manage' all lanes or, indeed, all public facilities? How about schools? When demand increases, don't build a new school, just raise the price. Same for public services. More water is demanded? Just raise the price. Those who can't afford it will reduce their usage. Sound good?

Of course not. Before demand starts to overwhelm supply, the public sector should control growth. This is also a form of pricing, since real estate values will increase, but this is a higher level choice. You can move to an area that you cannot afford, but you will know that while you are there, public facilities and services will be affordable. Those who choose (those who are priced out of the land market) can find a land market where their total bundle of goods and services is affordable. Location, location, location.

Jeff Session's statement about students as "sanctimonious, sensitive, supercilious snowflakes" was, for me, a whimsical comment not at all expected from our Attorney General. But, this was also not a realistic assessment of college students today, or for any day over the past four to five decades. There have always been some students that fit his whimsy quite well, just as there have always been students who, even after becoming adults, make one wonder if they didn't sleep through college and never grinned at "the change all around." Or maybe Sessions is a man "so simple that only a profound man would know him as profound?"

But my take on this focuses on those who can't see through such statements. Session's whimsy is indicative of a person who has lived in a fairytale utopia and seems incapable of seeing those who have not lived so. This is not unlike those who see Trump's world of privilege, with Trump himself in his only possible role of absolute monarch who acts only in terms of "me" and "now" so that anyone who disagrees with his reality is fake or wrong. Can it be the case that Trump is a man who appears "so complicated that only a profound man would know him to be simple?"

Ever since cell phones started to become popular on campus, I noticed that many students leaving classroom buildings immediately took out their phones and called somebody (yes, there was a time when telephone calls were the predominant use of cell phones, years before texting, social media, and games came to the forefront). Many students who in my day would light up a cigarette instead would light up IT (this also was much before UCI became a smoke-free campus). Now, a recent UCI research study has found that a cell phone can serve as a "security blanket" and can reduce stress in various social situations (and we've all heard about cell phone use after, or during, sex). Such activity is almost certainly an improvement over cigarettes, and a formal study is rarely a bad thing. But are these results in anyway surprising?

As soon as they arrive on campus, freshmen at Howard University are introduced to the civic responsibility of voting (or at least to how to register and how absentee ballots work). Are there universities that offer a (perhaps) biannual freshmen course directed toward introducing issues and candidates on the upcoming fall ballot at local, state, and national levels? Isn't this something that all institutions of higher learning should be doing?

CSU San Bernardino's Leonard Transportation Center's September 11th Dialogue Series is entitled "Transit and Rail: Are They The Answers?". Maybe a previous seminar addressed the questions?

David Levinson's Transportationist blog hypothesizes a goal of paper review as a quality stimulus, and not simply review and feedback. If all an author got back was "Thanks, we'll take it" (or "No thanks") then there would not be any quality stimulus. The problem is that there are simply too many papers, driven by academic advancement and not a desire to advance the state-of-the-art. Ideally, a paper should be reviewed, revised, and hung on a flagpole to see who reads it, and only then accepted and buried in one's resume. Only the best papers, those that stand the test of time and have been suitably verified and replicated, would be formally published.

David also suggests that we spend too much time poring over papers (and that outsiders would be really surprised by how much time). In transportation, it seems that we have a decrease in quality mirroring an increase in quantity of papers appearing in journals. There are too many papers to review that distort the review time required. I also personally note a rapid decrease in writing quality in many journals that suggests less review and/or less feedback.

Review delays are problematic, especially excessive delays, that David claims further delays the process by the need to revisit work completed months earlier. I think that authors that cannot suitably remember their work even 6-12 months after completing it and receiving feedback probably did not really have anything that important to say, or at least not anything of worth for others to read. I think I understand the academic perspective, but it's one that we have created and fostered, with output explosions in the number of Ph.D.s, journals, conferences, and indices of what (and who) is ranked highest, but little sense of what's worthwhile or what's best.

I agree with David's last line more than his first: "The amount of knowledge buried on ... hard drives because of the peer review ... system is a huge loss ... to scientific progress." My parallel observation is that dissertations, particularly those with extensive model, software, and data development, are typically lost to posterity within a few short years. Our field's system is to advance people, not to advance knowledge. Or so it often seems.

What's your preference?
(a) "Catchy cute titles: Why authors prefer this format"
(b) "Why do I ask this? What grumpy people do when bored"

A blurb in ASEE's First Bell email news (30July2018) quotes an engineering dean who found that young students in the classroom "still think of engineers as train conductors." It was not clear who the young students were but the familiarity with trains today is such that young people, while perhaps not at all sure what an engineer is, would not assume that they drove a train, particular with today's media and the level of technology that has become part of everyday life. The real point, of course, is that 'young students' do not know what engineers are until they are introduced to what engineering is, something that is still rare in most K-12 education. Informal surveys in our capstone senior design sequence in Civil and Environmental Engineering have shown that when starting as freshmen about half of our students thought civil engineering was the same as structural engineering and that there was only a general perception of what environmental engineering entailed, even among those in the major. It would make sense that many 'young people' do not have the level of knowledge needed to make informed career choices. All of our young people should have some 'training' in engineering.

A recent paper asks "Is It Time for a Public Transit Renaissance?" While the namesake Renaissance, some would say, is still underway, its fundamental basis of man as the measure of all things may well be shared with an emerging libertarian philosophy, albeit quite narrowly defined, in transportation and with the focus on man more in the singular than the collective. But it is the subtitle that caught my eye: "Navigating Travel Behavior, Technology, and Business Model Shifts in a Brave New World." The paper delivers on the triad but what about the Huxleyan reference to a Brave New World?

Besides the title, there is no mention of a Brave New World anywhere in the paper. I can personally appreciate (if not anticipate) the potential for Huxley's Brave New World dystopia if the identified trends portend the future, but the paper takes a perspective which, with prior work by the authors, may be seen in a positive light if not somewhat utopian. While Huxley borrowed his title from The Tempest, it is even less likely that Shakespeare's new world theme is of relevance to the renaissance in question. Perhaps there's something more than meets the eye?

Fundamentally, I do not believe that any society can sustain as a collection of "users" paying fees for just their chosen marginal usage. The whole will be less than the sum of the parts.

Bret Stephens writes in The New York Times (19July2018) that

"Trump's behavior in Helsinki is, however, another vivid reminder of his manifest unfitness for office. That's true whether the behavior is best explained as a matter of moral turpitude or mental incompetence - of his eagerness to accept the word of a trained liar like Vladimir Putin over the consensus assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies, or of his inability to speak coherently at a critical moment in his presidency. The president's pathetic suggestion on Tuesday that he misspoke by failing to use a double negative also reminds that, knave or fool, he's a congenital liar."

There is virtually no debate among climate professionals that global warming is occurring (the stock market should be so predictable). There is no debate that burning fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, nor is there any debate that alternative energy is the logical path that can put America in the lead of energy research, development, and economic prosperity, while best addressing climate change. Americans, and I suspect our President, do not want our fragile coastal waters exposed to the many dangers of oil and gas drilling (especially in their own front yards). Yet your administration is now pushing a five-year offshore plan that would allow drill rigs to put virtually every inch of our coastline at risk of devastating oil spills, not to mention the existential threat to our coastlines themselves due to sea level rise. Is it all bad news?

No, there is some good news. Continuing to burn fossil fuels extracted by offshore drilling will decrease onshore economic activity due to sea level rise and subsequent decreases in tourism, fishing, and other coastal industries. While the administration appears blind to global warming from fossil fuels, they have apparently determined to use this strategy to move populations away from our coasts before the devastating effects of sea level rise begin by 2040.

I only suggest that your boss's campaign slogan for 2020 will, pun intended, reflect a clear future vision to "Make America Small Again" as our coastlines dissolve into the warming oceans. I ask that you reject new drilling along America's coasts for oil that America doesn't need, and instead place your efforts into developing new energy industries for the future.

Rare is the presence of three opinion articles on the same page of today's LA Times that each draw my attention. The first was a concise overview by UCI's Richard Hasen of legal problems that could kill the recent Draper-sponsored ballot proposition to cleave California into three new states. Quite good.

The second was an Ann Friedman OpEd that argues that Diane Feinstein should not be running for Senate again this year. Unfortunately, this OpEd really doesn't argue anything, other than indirectly suggesting that perhaps she is too old and should be making way for someone else. All that should be relevant is whether she is doing the job that deserves the support she has overwhelmingly received from California voters, and whether one thinks that she will continue to do so, at least better than anyone else in the queue. This OpEd featured a big close-up of the Senator, drawing much too attention to a passive-aggressive OpEd. Bad.

The third article is an editorial from the LA Times wistfully calling for jobs and homes along the Expo line. I strongly agree that local interests should call the shots for local development, including not only locally elected officials but also community groups. But the Times does not stray far from Scott Weiner's SB 827 progressive ideas that the whole is far more important than any part. In the same way that the stability of families strengthens the backbone of America, stability of neighborhoods provides the backbone of cities. Having people continue to aspire to this American ideal can only be weakened by attempts to limit the stability of that concept. The term NIMBY is no different from NIMF (Not in My Family, for those who were not paying attention). The Times also fails to see that the increased perceived accessibility of station locations increases land values, so affordability can only be addressed with greater densities, which will create congestion but with no guarantee of higher transit usage. Calling for action without thought is how we got into the current ugly situation.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) suggested that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which holds that the Chinese have a better environmental record than Trump's scorched earth agenda, must be an agent of the Chinese government to say so. Hmmm, it seems that Rep. Bishop might be the true undercover agent who's trying to deflect attention to an innocent public interest NGO while he gains control of Utah for China to establish fishing rights in the Great Basin. Makes as much if not more sense.

My much respected colleagues at UC Davis have named their newsletter "Headlights." Probably just me but is this the best name they could find for research and policy results focused on alternatives to the conventional automobile? Perhaps "Carburetor," or better yet "Exhaust Pipe," were already taken.

Jim Moore, my long-time colleague and friend, writes in the Daily News about ways to pay for a transportation future that is not yet here. First, the current fuel tax at some point needs to be replaced, but that point is far off. The proportion of alternative fuel vehicles is effectively zero. Adjusting fuel tax rates is as easy as snapping one's fingers (and it's just as easy to end these rates if and when the time comes). Regarding alternate fuels, for now let's encourage their use by giving them a free ride.

Second, right now there is no effective replacement system to the fuel tax. What technology needs to be added to 30 million vehicles in California alone, let alone to every pump at every fuel dispensing location? In-state VMT estimates would be needed, as well as the type of vehicle if one was concerned with actual wear and tear on state roads (something for which current fuel taxes can provide a reasonable estimate), and all without further erosion of privacy (such as where the miles were driven).

Third, why do people (yes, apparently even Jim) think that the very same population that distrusts fuel taxes and how these revenues are spent would be just fine with VMT taxes and how these dollars would be spent? Fourth, the recent Newman voter recall and the fall ballot proposition are simply Republican charades to get more Republican voters to the polls. They could give a crap about fuel taxes, although most of them are fine with a user fee paying for maintenance and repair of our transportation infrastructure, something that they agree is very much needed. Already, voters in 18 California counties have approved long term sales tax propositions suggesting that voters will pay for better transport, especially when the law clearly defines what is being bought.

SB1 was one of the most needed and logical acts taken by the California legislature in years (okay, that's a relatively low bar). You can pay at the pump or you can pay in terms of more congestion and more auto repairs, but you will pay.

A wonderful OpEd by Vince Beiser appeared in the LA Times today on, of all subjects, concrete. While Beiser rightfully declares concrete to be "an invention as transformative as fire or electricity," he incorrectly dates it's widespread application to the turn of the 20th century. Concrete has been used in building infrastructure for over 2,000 years, including in ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire. After an historical "lull" of sorts, it's modern application followed the development of Portland cement and reinforced concrete in the mid-1800s (the latter advance providing tensile strength critical to the modern scale of public infrastructure).

Beiser's first key point is that the production and use of concrete has significant environmental impacts. The cement industry produces 5 to 10 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions worldwide (third behind coal-fired power plants and automobiles) and concrete is a contributing factor in creating urban heat islands. Unfortunately, Beiser sounds an alarm on the durability of concrete. With classic architecture such as the Pantheon lasting nearly two millennia, this is not necessarily the case. Construction standards in the age of economic efficiency are such that many concrete structures such as roadways are designed with a relatively short life span, but there's no worry that the Hoover Dam will be failing (it could outlive the natural rock in which it is set). Beiser also quotes an FHWA statistic that 25 percent of domestic bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. While the former term does describe infrastructure that is characterized by deteriorated conditions and a reduction in structural load-carrying capacity, this does not imply imminent failure. Further, functionally obsolete means that current design standards for geometrics are not met but this does not imply structural deficiencies.

Beiser's more important point involves the other ingredient needed with cement and steel for modern concrete: course aggregates, usually sand and gravel. Beiser argues that we are running out of sand (it's important to understand that not all sand is the same and, unfortunately, that found on beaches is good while that found in deserts is not). Mining sand (and gravel) has significant environmental impacts and readily mined sources are running out. Beiser compares this impending Malthusian crisis with de-forestation, overfishing, and "sucking oil out of the ground to fuel an ever-growing armada of automobiles" (words matter in more than the obvious way). The problem really sits with one brief allusion by Beiser on population. Although the shift of population from rural to urban is what's responsible for rapidly increasing concrete demands, and not simply the increase in the world's population, each of these problems facing humans is precisely because there are too many humans.

Transportation technology apps for ride hailing services such as Lyft and Uber have been broadly welcomed, except by taxi drivers (and, sooner or later, ride hailing drivers themselves). Similarly, the rapid adoption of public bike and scooter apps throughout southern California have been broadly welcomed, except for pedestrians. Emilia Crotty, executive director of Los Angeles Walks (a wonderfully optimistic if not somewhat inaccurate branding) claims in the LA Times that "Los Angeles has handed over its public realm to the automobile" when it was of course the people of Los Angeles (and the rest of the developed world) that staked this claim. For decades there were but few who thought that this was a bad thing, and the actual transformation was much deeper that just handing over public space. Now, other forms of "more rapid than walking" (MRTW) transport have been made available by private business and technology: on demand bikes and scooters, which as Crotty says, are taking up space on public sidewalks. She rightfully suggests that, if these new apps are intended to replace car trips, then perhaps it should be car-related space (such as parking spots) and not pedestrian space (such as sidewalks) that is consumed by these vehicles and trips. But are these new trips actually replacing car trips or are these trips replacing walking trips? How many of these trips are induced (how I love that word) by the ubiquity of the service? Are these tourists bombing around Westwood, Venice, and Coronado adding trips to the network or are car trips being replaced? A study of user behavior and public costs would appear to be in order.

The biggest difference between those who love living in big cities and those who don't is that those who do, can't comprehend why those who don't, don't. The second biggest difference is that those who do, lacking comprehension of lesser differences, apparently cannot resist writing books about those who don't.

In Civil Engineering (May 2018), the always excellent book reviewer Ray Bert reviews "Suburban Remix: Creating the Next Generation of Urban Places" (edited by Jason Beske and David Dixon. Island Press, 2018). Bert writes "despite their ubiquity and seeming popularity ..., the suburbs have gotten a bad rap for many decades." He then summarizes some complaints about suburbia including soullessness, homogeneity, and, here it comes, "the way they shackle residents to their vehicles." Moving from the cliff edge to a freefall into the abyss, Bert then writes "it's not so much the suburbs themselves that are the problem, it's when they are done in a way that leads to more sprawl." Point, set, match.

I normally would not focus on a review but, sadly, I have not yet read the book. Well, not 'yet' but I probably won't because I tire of even the rare novel suburban criticism floating in the soulless sea. I guess a library visit may be in order. According to Bert, the book considers re-purposing "the millions of acres" of grayfields, comprising "defunct or dying shopping centers and office parks." This view is not novel, although it was deemed urban renewal when the defunct and dying urban core was the focus of redevelopment efforts 50 years ago. Perhaps what's good for the goose (cities) is good for the gander (suburbs) but let's not forget that the goose, when forced fed redevelopment funds and public transit, produced an unexpected form of fois gras. There is much more to the picture including a constant evolution of land use, the economy, and technology. Bert concludes that "remix" provides the opportunity to transform "... failing symbols of the 'old' suburban model ... into ... exactly what many people are looking for." Many people? I assume that we're back to the top and referring to those who love living in big cities and writing about those who don't.

Eric Adams writes (5 June 2018) "Public expectations of transportation safety are now incredibly high, which makes perfect sense: that's all we hear about." So it's really media's treatment of these issues that excites the public, not the public's expectations per se. The media is driving (pun intended, although perhaps it is better put as dealing) the message, and this is the real problem.

But what about individual actions that lead to this media "coverage?" Do we really need people driving their own cars? Or owning guns? Or playing dangerous contact sports? Or taking risks with drinking and eating things that are bad for you? Do we really need people doing anything? Or even existing? In a word, no. But we do exist, and all of these activities are what gives our lives value. Can society as a whole do better? Of course, and we should continue to strive toward preventing tragedy but not at the expense of devaluing the art of living.

Adams quotes UCI's Azim Shariff as saying "People are going to need to tolerate ... fatalities without consumers abandoning the industry, or politicians and judges killing it with overly punitive regulation and liability judgments. It's a tall ask." No, it is not: it's the status quo. Most technology advances have a sufficiently large techno-audience that will fully support their development. The results in most cases will be significant improvements in the issues that media and academia often target, such as loss of life. But there will be little discussion of deeper issues, such as the behavioral impacts of these technologies, impacts that cannot be easily counted and reported. For example, what has the impact been of ubiquitous and profit-oriented media on how the public even reacts to new technologies? And in particular, that technology called media?

A recent LA Times OpEd (31May2018) addressed the political organization, or the lack there of, of the so called nones -- those people who identify with no religion. The OpEd provided data illustrating the growth of the none cohort, specifically a growth such that the nones now surpass white evangelical christians in number but, the authors claim, not in political power. Nones are grouped together by their common lack of religious affiliation, hardly a rallying point for joint political action. My guess is that most nones didn't abandon religion any more than they abandoned various clothing styles or technologies. The world changed and with it so have the nones, moving away from established institutions but not necessarily toward new ones. Institutions can be hijacked and used as weapons by those whose beliefs are not always congruent with the institution. Many have claimed that this has already happened to evangelical Christians, or that the institution itself evolved away from its non-secular canon and emerging leaders have use those remaining, and their secular beliefs, as cannon fodder in achieving decidedly secular objectives. The authors conclude that nones must form a "cohesive group, yet one representing a wide swath of diverse interests." I'm not sure that this is even possible, especially if the nones are abandoning not only established institutions but also the very concept of institutions. A polarization of political institutions may well parallel the same in religious institutions, and nones may want little of either. One can only hope that the so called nones will maintain core values and participate in decision-making as independent citizens, which is the fundamental goal of any democracy.

One shouldn't judge a book by its cover but perhaps we can waive this maxim for presentation titles. "Planning An Integrated Active Travel And Green Infrastructure System For Mental Well-being In Disadvantaged Communities" is a title that should be nominated for a dis-award for "Use of Excessive Buzzwords in a Title" at the next Publishers Clearinghouse conference.

Scene: News at 10 with HD gigadoppler 7000 showing a debris field on AI-10.
Story: A autonomous vehicle got a little over-juiced on its auto-charger, over-road programmed restrictions on late night solo-driving, swiped a six-pack of energy boosts, and hit the highway, only to end in a senseless wrong-way collision that shut-down the autonomous AI-10 freeway while the robo-cops sensed for evidence of cyber-crime.

The Nobel Prize in Literature will not be awarded this year, apparently due to a sexual assault scandal involving the husband of a Swedish Academy member. In the LA Times (11 May 2018) David Ulin asks why and provides a response. "The easy answer is to say that the Nobel Prize is tainted -- which, of course, it is. How can a small group of people, any people, decide the best in literature when such a standard is at best subjective and far more often, reactionary, insular?" Ulin comments that it's not the award but the resulting dialogue on literature that's important. If this is the case, why not end the prize as it exists and instead provide 10 grants to deserving young writers? That would be more noble than Nobel.

In a blog post from ITS Davis, Susan Pike provides a nice take on institutional issues involving ride hailing and local and state governments in California, comments that I think also apply to other intergovernmental conflicts, such as those arising in housing policy. Pike writes that "... local governments want to retain control over the details of addressing the impacts of ride hailing in their jurisdictions" and although stakeholders "value a coordinated statewide effort to set targets and provide a bird's eye view to find best practices," she concludes from a series of interviews that "local government stakeholders want to be sure they can address ride hailing in a way that fits the needs of their unique areas." Pike also is aware of the breadth of her perspective, commenting that California needs "a balance between local control and state coordination, for example, in the process of AB 32 and SB 375 setting goals for GHG reductions but leaving the means to reach these goals largely to local jurisdictions. Such a multi-level perspective is perhaps also appropriate regarding the state encouraging better housing policies but leaving the final choice to local jurisdictions (unlike Scott Wiener's proposed but for now defeated SB 827). As Pike concludes: "This approach makes sense; there is a huge variety among California communities." I agree.

A campaign flier from Representative Mimi Walters says she is "fighting to roll back (the California) state gas tax increase and stop any efforts in Congress to raise the federal gas tax." Her reason? "middle-class families and small businesses in California suffer under the highest fuel prices in the nation." This is false (see below). Maybe she figures Californians will need the extra $122 each year to pay for medical care since Walters continues to not care about middle-class families and health care in her votes against the Affordable Care Act or votes for huge tax decreases for corporations and the very wealthy, not to mention increasing the national deficit by an estimated trillion dollars. Walters cares not about gas taxes, nor about middle-class families, but only about toeing the Republican party line.

Note 1. The US average of 12,700 miles per year per vehicle and the California average of about 25 mpg yields 508 gallons per year which, at the extra 12 cents of state tax per gallon, is about $61 per vehicle, or about $122 for the average two car household.

Note 2. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each dollar spent on road improvements results in an average benefit of $5.20 in the form of reduced vehicle maintenance costs, reduced delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved safety, reduced road and bridge maintenance costs, and reduced emissions as a result of improved traffic flow. This sounds like a very wise investment.

Note 3. A few misrepresentations by Walters. The picture of gas prices on a gas pump is from many years back since gas prices in California have averaged about $1.20 less for the past few years than the prices shown on the flier. She also says that Californians pay up to $1.00 more than other states. Well, California does have the 5th highest fuel taxes in the US but this is still only about 28 cents more than the lowest, Alaska, so most of the $1.00 price differential, if accurate, is due to demand or other factors, and not due to taxes. Last, the recent SB 1 fuel tax is the only such fuel tax increase imposed by "Jerry Brown" so it is incorrect to state that this is yet "another gas tax ... on state motorists." And, last, congressional salaries have increase by 30 percent since 1993, the last time the federal gas tax was raised to 18.4 cents per gallon. If the gas excise tax was only indexed to congressional salaries, it would now be about 24 cents per gallon and would thus cover about two thirds of the Highway Trust Fund annual deficit. Perhaps Walters should put her salary where her mouth is.

Emerging implies something that is becoming apparent or known. A trend implies a general direction in which something has already developed. If it's a trend, as in an established tendency, can it be emerging, at least in an apparent or known way? If it's emerging, can enough be apparent or known to make it a trend? There were signs that millennials might be expressing "emerging" preferences for urban residence and no driver's license; but this is not a trend, is likely short term, and is probably not even valid. There were signs as early as 2007 that VMT had peaked, with prognosticators (albeit not very good ones) stating that this "emerging trend" meant the end of VMT and, I'm sure many hoped, the end of the automobile. By 2014 the "emerging trend" was revealed as not a trend at all as VMT hit an all-time high. Maybe this was due to all those millennials getting licenses and moving to the 'burbs.

Did you know that today is National Prescription Drug Take Back Day? Seeing eight large boxes of prescribed pharmaceuticals given back at my local community center, I think that we should declare each of the other 364 days of the year as "Stop Prescribing so Damn Many Drugs Day."

Campus Technology (28 March 2018) reports that "some 70% of students use college and university websites primarily to search for information on majors and minors, and 45% for attendance costs" but only 19% were primarily researching a school's ranking." So students appear to be mostly concerned with getting into a school that will provide them a path to a career, while schools are in it for the rankings.

OCTA on the Move (22 March 2018) reports: "With the opening of a new six-mile carpool lane in each direction of I-5 in south Orange County, a vital freeway improvement project is easing traffic congestion in Orange County. Begun in 2014, the $230-million project makes it easier for tens of thousands of daily commuters to travel through San Clemente, Dana Point and San Juan Capistrano."

Sounds like what was said years ago when a similar "vital improvement" on I-405 began to ease traffic congestion in north Orange County, but this vital improvement apparently had too much vitality so it's being eliminated because too many drivers used it. I guess that we'll probably have a new HOT lane in south County by 2030 -- essentially a grace period when tolls will not be charged ...

With all deserved respect to UC Davis, the 3 Revolutions is really just brilliant marketing. These "revolutions" will or will not occur to some unknown degree whatever their effort seeks to accomplish. All we can do is plan, model, and analyze to assess promise, potential, and performance. The less one knows about problems, analysis, and performance, the more one is blinded by shining baubles. Let's not get lost in the apparent trends at the expense of not realizing what might be sneaking up on us.

Last week we were served notice of a metaphorical "freeway of the future" and this week we are advised of a literal "freeway of the future". The I-405 in Orange County and the yet unnamed and unfunded high desert freeway between Palmdale and Victorville have many similarities. Effort at the statewide level would allow us to scale up success stories, to consider corridor and local impacts of inter-regional growth, as well as the impacts of other large infrastructure projects under consideration in Southern California such as truck lanes on the I-110 and HOV lanes on the CA 101, not to mention the increasingly more expensive bullet train (I'm shocked. Shocked). Freeways were supposedly passe years ago, and I suspect that they will be once again in years to come, at least freeways as we have come to know and love.

About 40 years ago I loaded my worldly possessions and my dog into my '70 VW bug and followed my songlines west. A lot has changed since then, and a lot has remained the same. I soon read a book by Christopher Evans, "The Micro Millennium," which looked at a future with the cheap power of the microprocessor. I recently glanced at the book and saw a preface page that asked whether the reader could predict: ultra-intelligent machines, toys that responded to their owner's commands, complete and portable medical records, robots that cut the lawn, and fully automatic accident-proof vehicles. Those toys have been about for decades, and robots cut the lawn but more commonly vacuum the house (I wonder why?). We're now seeing autonomous vehicles just at the beginning of deployment, but those medical chips don't seem to be around yet. The track record is a bit spotty for these projections, perhaps because artificial intelligence is a bit spotty as to what is promised, or even what can be. Phillip Adams said "Although artificial intelligence remains a remote possibility, genuine stupidity is an indisputable fact." This seems to set the bar low, and many think of AI but only see AIn't. In 40 years from now, will someone whose "spirit is crying for leaving" look to the west and load their worldly possessions and their dog into a '49 beetle and follow their songlines?

Exactly 100 years ago, another journey started. At century's end, the world remains a better place.

To some people, the economy is sort of like a scab. They just can't leave it alone. With every economic factor and trend looking good for an unprecedented time, why would anyone want to pick at it? They want more. And while more is not always better, it's always more. So when a tax bill is passed that will add $1.5 trillion to the national debt, someone gets to spend that $1.5 trillion, inflating the economy like a balloon.

In the comedy "The History of the World," King Louis XVI feels he can grab onto any part of any woman simply because he wears the crown. After each occasion, the King turns to the camera and says "It's good to be the king." But kings can only live in the "me" and "now" for a short time. At least in all the fairy tales.

"Everything must be made as simple as possible. But not simpler." So said Einstein. Everything most certainly includes taxes and regulation. Deciding what is "as simple as possible," well, "there's the rub".

Boomers, millennials, and various generation XYZ monikers have been adhered to population subgroups that appear (at least to their namers, since most others blindly just "carpe meme") to be in some key ways different from the prior subgroup. But there may well be a sub-group of cultural survivors, perhaps mostly those who never thought of themselves as dues paying members of a "generation". These survivors have often made it through several cultural generations, evolving in some ways, sometimes adopting the ways and memes, and often the technologies, of their offspring generations. By virtue of time, if nothing else, we can refer to these survivors as "people of age".

When I was in high school, at the end of final exams students were required to sign a pledge attesting that they did not cheat, a pledge that was eventually reduced to the simple statement "I do so declare" and your signature was affixed. Why, I asked, would anyone who cheated have any qualms about signing a statement stating that they didn't cheat? Of course, this might be considered conditioning: continual reminders that one should not cheat, in the same manner that students daily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, to inculcate some sense of loyalty to the institutions that are providing opportunities for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (not to mention an education).

These oaths take on greater meaning when one is formally stating that their subsequent words will be truthful, as in a court of law, or your actions will adhere to the laws of the land, as in accepting an elected (or appointed) position with government. Of late, we have seen requests for loyalty that would seem to run counter to the fundamental vows taken by public figures. First, we have the infamous Grover Norquist "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" where (Republican) members of Congress promise to oppose any and all tax increases. Despite having loyalty only to the Constitution and the citizens that they represent, these congressional representatives apparently think that it's acceptable to pledge fealty to a third party. It's not their anti-tax sentiment, something that most people would appreciate; rather, it's the pledge to a third party. One could present many similar arguments regarding pledges to political parties taking precedent over representing all the people they serve (and not just those who voted for them).

Second, and more troubling, is the insistence of loyalty by our current President (who, oddly, is perhaps the least loyal person one could imagine, who only thinks in terms of "me" and "now"). Elected and appointed officials pledge allegiance to the Constitution. Requesting an underling to pledge fealty, presumably over any and all other pledges, including that to the Constitution, would seem to be, first, in conflict with the formal constitutional pledge and second, and more importantly, completely meaningless. A mirror image of "I do so declare", such a loyalty pledge implies that you are willing to cheat. The key difference is not for those who are "loyal" (in the Machiavellian sense), who presumably would be willing to say or do anything to protect their leader (and thus not really need such an oath), but for those who ultimately would follow their foundational pledge to uphold the Constitution and put individual responsibility and ethics first and foremost. Is the reason for requesting such a loyalty oath similar to the inculcation of high school minds -- just setting a behavior for the future -- or is it an effective warning on the part of the leader of actions taken in the past and those presumed to be made in the future that will require such fealty to the leader? Is making this oath effectively a pledge to cheat? I do so declare.

In his recent State of the Union, our fearless leader promises that "We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways all across our land". Gleaming roads? Really?

More people means more houses, more businesses, more schools, and, yes, more roads. Yet many in charge of the first three are not sympathetic to the latter. The question is not whether our roads or schools are crowded but, rather, the question is are we providing for population needs? And the biggest question is precisely what defines the population in need?

"You can't build your way out of congestion", the oft-repeated mantra, holds some truth. In an area with a dynamic economy and increasing population, the best that expanding infrastructure supply can hope to achieve is accommodating this expanding demand. The corollary mantra goes something like "loosening your belt is not a solution to over-eating." But as with adding capacity, there is initial relief from the pressure of excessive demand. But, at some point, someone must ask "Why don't we just stop expanding?"

In California, we are now actively engaged in planning to address a housing crisis. This crisis is real and reflects a limited supply of affordable housing with increasing housing demand. Does this start to sound like our traffic congestion problem? It should. The very people that are having trouble finding affordable housing today will be the ones sitting on the freeway tomorrow. Or, and quite realistically, will be facing decisions on the affordability of travel options next week. Society to some degree accepts that people choose to sit in traffic but increasingly cannot tolerate that some cannot find affordable housing.

Proposed legislation is directed toward building housing in proximity to public transit, but there are capacities for transit systems just like there are for roadways. And, for transit, there's the issue of accessibility to destinations: can you reach the desired activity destinations via transit? Historically, the answer is a simple no. That's why people, when they can finally afford a car, leave transit behind (note that public transit ridership in southern California is stagnant and 40 percent lower than pre-recession levels while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has reached an all-time high). If I had to characterize many LA neighborhoods, I would say that they are not sufficiently dense to support good public transit but are way too congested to allow any conventional form of surface transit to function.

The problem is quite simple, although we choose to ignore it. Under the pattern of development in southern California, in many if not most areas, little more growth can be accommodated. Expanding housing will accomplish at best the accommodation of current demands, just like expanding roads. Some claim that the only option for controlling excess travel demand is road pricing. Markets are now controlling excess housing demand via pricing. Six of one and a half dozen of the other.

From Friday's ASCE SmartBrief" "The Interior Department ... unveiled a five-year draft offshore drilling plan to allow drilling in more than 90% of the Outer Continental Shelf," quoting David Holt, Consumer Energy Alliance President, "Increasing offshore production would help keep gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel prices affordable for cash-strapped families and small businesses." Always looking out for the little guy.

An article in the LA Times (27 Dec 2017) discusses efforts by a company named Arity Corp. which uses "smart phone apps and add-on devices to track every move that drivers make behind the wheel." The stated intent is to "accurately assess insurance risk." About 1.1 million drivers have opted to participate in return for an insurance discount. But how many people would agree to be micro-monitored in return for a discount?

Currently, insurance companies can only assess risk post facto, when a customer reports an accident and has the damage appraised, or they can apply rate structures based on a region's post facto performance, such as in theft-prone areas or regions with severe weather. People who self-assess as good drivers might opt in but those who do not have confidence in their driving skills would likely not. I doubt this could be sold as a premium driving skills package, but some people may wish to have other household drivers monitored (or other drivers in general, such as the idiots with whom you interact all too often). And, I hesitate to say, people seem less concerned today with Big Brother. We pay for cell phone and internet service but we give away data that is likely more valuable to telecom companies than the monthly charge. There are a few services that will charge you less if you agree to provide data, and this may be what the insurance industry is after. But even if it doesn't bother you that your privacy no longer is yours to control, is this monitoring going to have a future?

The future of driving appears to be limited with the coming of autonomous vehicles. In such a future, it would seem that vehicles and not drivers would be insured, and vehicles would be autonomously- or system-controlled, eliminating all driver error. It is somewhat ironic that the same technology that may allow for an unbiased assessment of driving skills and thus risk will also soon eliminate most driving from the transportation system. What impacts this will have on insurance companies is unclear, but they are certainly thinking about it, and much more than the average bear.

The Washington Post (D. Fears, 5 November 2017) reports that Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) noted that of the total species listed since 1973, only about 3 percent have been delisted and then quotes the senator as saying "As a doctor, if I admit 100 patients to the hospital and only three recover enough to be discharged, I would deserve to lose my medical license." Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and The Supreme Court soon determined that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting" the ESA "was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." It is the practitioner and not the patient that loses their medical license, so it should be members of Congress and not endangered species that lose their license to practice. We can start with Sen. Inhofe and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), both of whom have "practices" dedicated to removing federal protections from federal lands, and in their fondest dreams, removing federal land ownership as well. The native flora and fauna on federal lands are wholy irrelevant in this resurrection of Manifest Destiny.

There are real problems associated with self-driving cars, but they're not the problems that are being broadly discussed in media. Consider the so-called "trolley problem." As a purely hypothetical, philosophers can spend all of their time on this one because it has little relevance to the real world. How many cars, trolleys, or other human-driven vehicles have ever been in this situation? I'd wager none. The issue makes virtually no sense. The processing time and complexity of the hypothetical situation, which appears to have no general solution, oddly reflects the reality that in the oft-chance that such a scenario would ever develop, the response would be instinctual and not based on any reasoning whatsoever. Would an autonomous car with better sensors and faster processors be able to address and resolve this complexity? If so, it would certainly be better to avoid the conflict in the first place by, say, just stopping. Second, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) recently discussed "big question" issues such as whether open-container laws would need to be revised with self-driving cars. This, of course, is clearly irrelevant to the deployment of self-driving cars.

So what are some real issues? The rise of automation has reduced the skill set of most individuals and the process of driving is precisely one of these skill sets (fundamental skills such as multi-tasking and spatial perception, not the act of driving per se). Studies have suggested that GPS-based way-finding apps result in spatial skills either never being developed or being lost (including atrophy of the brain-area dedicated to spatial perception). Now you may scoff at this concern, but read the above paragraphs again and the many recent articles and tell me what you think the bigger problems would be.

The USHSR News today (22 September 2017) says that "High speed rail is the smartest investment we can make in our future!" With all the chaos about quality of schools and public infrastructure in general, I guess the best strategy is to pour all the resources we have (save those needed to build the wall) into HSR and then just sit back and wait for the checks to arrive.

Many letters to the editor published in the LA Times today, as well as in other media, have been from people symbolically expressing their opinion on "taking a knee." Many of these writers also have symbolically expressed the strength of their opinions by stating that they will boycott the NFL until this protest movement is stopped. The protest in question is itself directed toward a symbol: the U.S. flag. These protests are not directed toward a disrespect for the country, patriotism, mom, or apple pie. Instead, as with many protests, these are directed toward a problem: the real problem of African-American men being shot by police throughout the country with little if any redress in virtually every case. Those protesting are no different from protestors in general who walk picket lines, file lawsuits, write letters, and boycott products or events. Take-a-knee protests are directed, well defined (if you're paying attention), and legal. If you don't agree with the problem or the method of protest, then you may, as some letter writers just did, start your own protest. It's the American way. But please keep in mind that regarding "taking a knee," there are actual people dying in the streets and thus an urgency much greater than football.

This year, the City of Irvine re-constituted its Transportation Commission in response to increasing complaints of deteriorating traffic conditions, raised during last fall's election cycle. In May, the Orange County Register summarized initial comments and interests of newly appointed commissioners, all of whom appear to have at least some relevant experience. Comments were mostly run-of-the-mill such as "traffic is bad on major roads at peak hours in any big cities" and "local congestion (is) caused by people trying to avoid freeway traffic." Interests included "beef(ing) up bus routes" and improving traffic light synchronization." No surprises here.

No sense of history here, either. The City of Irvine is a "master-planned community" that has actually worked according to the plan. But this plan has started to change over the past few years with the City Council approving major development beyond what the master-planned transportation network can handle. This is why there is now excess congestion (some congestion is always expected in peak hours). Further, "trying to avoid freeway traffic" does not seem to be a valid excuse. There is little congestion on streets parallel (roughly east to west) to the two freeways, but significant levels of congestion on orthogonal (roughly north to south) arterials. The City is oriented so most north-south traffic has both origins and destinations within the City, thus, this congestion is in large measure by residents. One exception is extensive daily congestion on University Drive accessing the I-405 SB, which, in part is due to the City Council eliminating the Sand Canyon connection though (the gated) Shady Canyon. The City's design and daily population support limited public transit options, which in any case requires decisions by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in a county that has transit ridership hovering around forty percent lower than pre-recession peaks. OCTA also has a long-standing program for traffic signal coordination but it must be noted that these improvements require continuous action, since studies show the associated benefits to be short lived.

Now we see plans for expanding Jamboree Boulevard in the Irvine Business Complex from four to five lanes in each direction north of I-405 to feed into the Jamboree "mini-freeway" that connects to the tollway system in the northern foothills. From this description, the plan sounds quite logical. The land use along this corridor, however, is not necessary conducive to such a facility, since it has been developed over the past decade to incorporate an urban residential area with mature trees over broad sidewalks. In hindsight, this land use decision was probably a bad one but, in foresight, this mini-freeway will at best only temporarily address congestion and will likely only accommodate planned growth in the future. From this perspective, it is fortunate to have a qualified transportation commission. But the ultimate decision-maker, the City Council whose vision got us into this mess originally, is not likely the best way to get us out of it. As one no less than Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."

While we may not have all been surprised by arguments regarding the removal of confederate statues leading to arguments regarding the removal of founding father statues, I doubt many thought that the next salvo would be the LA City Council replacing Columbus Day with an Indigenous Peoples Day. While I've never been in favor of casting statues, buildings, holidays, and other honorifics on our favored heroes (or villains), I am less in favor of the ridiculous arguments made in support of these changes. Columbus is a symbol of an age of discovery that changed the world for the better, overall, despite the many atrocities that followed. But there were already wars, slavery, and other atrocities throughout the New World prior to the arrival of Europeans, as was the case in many parts of Africa. And more of the same throughout Europe and Asia before, during, and after the Age of Discovery. If you place any human being of any stature on a pedestal, real or proverbial, there will almost always be persons or groups who were ignored, used, or effectively eliminated with some responsibility falling on that person. This is not a justification of past, current, or future behaviors of heroes or those who seek to, theoretically, honor them. It's just acceptance of the fact that no one is either a hero or a villain. Each of us is both.

A study issued by the Roosevelt Institute and reported by CNBC concludes that "giving every adult in the United States a $1,000 cash handout per month would grow the economy by $2.5 trillion by 2025." Comments are in order. First, it would cost over $1.5 trillion annually to do this, all from increasing debt (since a tax increase to pay for it would cancel out the growth impact). The additional increase in GDP, up to $1 trillion by 2025, is the multiplier effect of money in circulation. This seems to contribute to an increasing debt each year (but I guess we're doing that anyway). Second, the discussion was oriented toward the concept of a Universal Basic Income that would be in response to automation eliminating jobs (but says little what the psychological costs and benefits would be). Third, this is consistent with the idea that it makes no difference to the overall economy as to who gets the money, as long as it is all spent or invested (and not stuffed into a mattress). Whether it's the one percent getting an extra million each year, or everybody else getting $1,000 per month, the results will be the same (despite the claim that high personal tax rates somehow diminish the economy). There are enough people talking about this to suggest that the general trend toward automation decreasing costs by eliminating jobs is one that we need to start planning for now.

"In bewildering times, when all the old ways seem to be dissolving into mire,
it serves us well to turn our eyes earthward and study the oft-overlooked wisdom beneath our feet."
Robert Moor

An LA Times letter (27 August 2017) addresses the recent Cal State University system decision to reduce the math graduation requirement and the associated commentary on the supposed rarity of practical usage of math, in particular, and of abstract thinking in general. While I wholeheartedly agree with the need for abstract thinking, I do not necessarily agree with the letter writer for three reasons. First, exposure to algebra does not mean that those who pass the course learn anything in the abstract sense, nor do such students reinforce that learning in subsequent coursework. Second, the formal algebra requirement could be replaced with other abstract reasoning courses, including an applied math course that would present the real world examples of math concepts, such as the exponential function mentioned in the letter, as a means of understanding population growth, climate change, and basic economics, all without the formal mathematics. Third, the problem is really a high school problem. Many of these students were not prepared for college and reducing college graduation requirements should not be an alternative to not admitting those who are not ready for college in the first place.

Two OpEd pieces, one in the LA Times (27 August 2017) and one in the New York Times (25 August 2017), provide excellent summaries of current issues with deep ramifications for our future. The NYT OpEd by Paul Krugman discusses the under-covered campaign by Trump and Pruitt to butcher many environmental safeguards protecting the health and prosperity of all Americans. The LA Times OpEd by Lisa Richardson provides an excellent review of the history and symbolism associated with racism and recent conflicts over monument removal. Highly recommended.

We have some people who want to stop immigration and want to maintain public display of memorabilia from days gone by. They want a wall and they want their statues. I propose that we remove all statues (and I mean all statues of "dead heroes" but will compromise and agree to just those that are the subject of current conflict) and place them along the U.S. / Mexican border, facing south, to form a wall (of sorts) to stoke fear in the hearts and minds of those considering crossing the border. Even if it doesn't achieve this goal, at least it will provide a convenient place for immigrants to relieve themselves as they trek north. When life gives you lemons ...

I do not think that any historical artifacts should be destroyed but I also personally believe that, where there are local objections, such artifacts should be moved to a suitable location where the historical value of the artifact can be explored in the proper context. Because context is critical. There are few if any absolutes: everything is in shades of grey. Which is why it is difficult to believe that, as the LA Times reports (19 August 2017), "controversy rears its head" at USC where their "equine mascot Traveler is under scrutiny for having a name similar to Robert E. Lee's horse." A co-director of the USC Black Student Union stated at a public rally to express solidarity after Charlottesville violence that "white supremacy hits close to home." There are no shortage of valid criticisms against what seems to be pervasive racism so that one should not need to focus on the name of a horse.

FYI: The LA Times (20 August 2017) today explored similarities between George Washington and Robert E. Lee by interviewing a history professor at Washington and Lee University who provided some historical perspective.

Continuing with the interview with Harriet Tregoning, a former principal deputy assistant secretary at HUD, Tregoning says "Honestly not a lot of people are thinking about the future. They're mostly looking at the past. They're not really even looking at the trends in some cases." I sometimes think that this human condition is, as Bruce Cockburn puts it, a grey burden where "Those who know don't have the words to tell, And the ones with the words don't know too well."

Odd that the transportation planning process and the component travel forecasting models dwell virtually only on the future. At first glance, this may seem to be a raison d'etre but this process of dead reckoning, measuring well into the future from a single data point today or in the recent past, makes little sense. If the models utilized cannot backcast to yesterday from today, from the known to the known, with knowledge of all that has changed in the interim, then what faith can there be going forward to the unknown?

And trends are not enough to consider. Trends are, in the short run, usually missed (e.g., the 2016 election) or misinterpreted (e.g., the "end of VMT" or that millennials will all live in cities and not own cars). To quote Roy Amara "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Perhaps this is due to our desire to be first, rather than to be correct. As with psychics, it seems to be that only the hits count, even when there are so few.

In a recent interview, Harriet Tregoning, former principal deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Community Planning and Development at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, reported the following statistics. "In the U.S. automobiles are driven 5 percent of the time and parked 95 percent of the time." And she quotes UCLA's parking guru, Don Shoup, who estimated that there are between seven and nine parking spaces for each and every automobile in America (virtually none, by the way, which are open within walking distance of UCLA).

These numbers may actually be quite efficient given other conveniences of daily life. Consider appliances such as washers and dryers, not to mention microwaves. In my house, I'd add several rarely used TVs and stereo systems and I have more than enough clothes taking up space in too many closets in too many bedrooms. In fact, most of the floorspace in my house is empty almost all the time. Vertical space, while full with books and CDs, just gathers dust (but where would that dust be if it weren't somehow accountable to the physics of wasted space). And nothing wastes more space than all of the "information" accessible via the internet (wasted space is not always measured in square feet and by other people's consumption patterns).

So, yes, my cars sit most of the time, as do most of the cars on my street. And as do my bicycles (and my dog, but he is getting old). Except for those individuals who are truly anti-auto, do people really worry about having too much parking? Would these people feel better if cars were driven more and parked less? Most car-related problems start when cars are moving (accidents, noise, and emissions). When you are anti-auto and have been unsuccessful changing the desire of people to drive, then you start to accept driving and focus on stopping them from parking. In the near future, autonomous vehicles might be moving most of the time, with many studies showing a reduction in parking demand but likely greater vehicle miles travelled. Will this be a good thing?

"Because once you've already paid for an expensive parking space, the likelihood that you would own or keep a car is much, much higher" says Tregoning. I think the choice of housing is tied to the choice of employment and activity patterns, which together define the need for a car. I have known no one who has bought a house with plenty of "free" parking, be it garage, driveway, or street, who then says 'Hey, I should get a couple more cars since I've got the space for them' (unlike actual decisions to buy more TVs, furniture, clothes, and dogs since 'hey, I've got the space for them'). So maybe the problem the anti-car folks should focus on is consumerism, in general. That's where the real waste likely lies, gathering dust in the silent ticking of digital clocks (I don't own a watch but I have eight clocks in my kitchen alone). If anything is taking up space, perhaps it's Tregoning's former title: "principal deputy assistant secretary ..."

In "America the Stuck" Citylab [2 Feb 2017] Richard Florida laments a decline in residential mobility as a blow against the American Dream and a yoke on the economy. "It's time that federal, state and local governments eliminate these distortions and level the playing field," writes Florida, "and help encourage the mobility that lies at the heart of the American Dream." He seems to ignore that this dream was more often the Jefferson's "movin' on up" and not Billy Joel's "movin' out."

Florida quotes a study by David Schleicher which argued that government policy plays a bigger role in American's declining mobility than we think. Schleicher identifies policies that he claims limit Americans' mobility, including the mortgage tax deduction (full disclosure: I no longer benefit from this and only marginally benefited in the past). Not paying income taxes on mortgage interest (or charitable donations, or other things that vary by state, such as not paying state taxes on federal taxes) may be viewed as "sacrific[ing] needed tax revenues" but which came first? Home ownership and charity came before federal income tax but more importantly, the decisions made in owning a home or having children cannot be easily reversed, thus, these decisions would need to be grandfathered in, which would be inequitable for those trying to make such decisions today. Florida, to his credit, does mention that these policies have benefits, but does not argue causality regarding diminished mobility nor whether mobility on the scale of the late 20th century should be expected or universally beneficial. It is also never explained why the mortgage interest deduction makes owners less likely to move, since the same deduction would apply elsewhere (in California, Prop 13 is a regulation that can limit residential mobility).

A truly progressive world would exist only in utopian dreams, as would the libertarian's world of open markets, fluid labor supply, and pure competition. Some people are just happy where they are but there are always some that can only see this as leaving some money on the table.

A recent UCI senior design project consider a "road diet" plan for a sprawling business complex in Newport Beach near John Wayne Airport. In a nutshell, a road diet is a conversion of a road with two or more lanes in each direction to one or more fewer lanes in each direction, usually with a central bi-direction turn lane, all while typically maintaining the full right-of-way. A road diet usually involves adding bike lanes and often involves removing parking. This was part of a real planning project which, in this case, appears to have been selected to minimize negative impacts, such as increased congestion or diversion of traffic to other routes. The location in question was not congested, with little need for traffic control and turn pockets, and featuring minimal bicycle and pedestrian traffic. But, as with most diets, no downside often means no upside.

Los Angeles has been more active in this regard and an LA Time editorial (30 July 2017) discussed blowback over 'road diets'" based on recent public outcry to a few road diet projects which, in LA's case, were in areas that were already heavily utilized. Traffic diverts to other routes with the effect of moving the problem from one location to another. There has always been quite a bit of wishful thinking when it comes to transportation, in general, and getting rid of the car, in particular (the car, like coal, will likely resolve many if not most of the negative impacts as technology provides solutions that are or will likely be embraced by users). Two such branded programs are "Complete Streets" and "Vision Zero," progressive policies that make complete sense in theory but, as Chuck Reid said, In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is." The idea behind Complete Streets is that all users should be accommodated, and the idea behind Vision Zero is the total elimination of traffic fatalities. One can't argue against either of these, in theory. In practice, what are the costs? Ceteris Paribus, one would think the greater the general mix of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorized vehicles, the greater the number of fatal and injury accidents; in many environments, a great mix slows drivers and actually increases safety of peds and bikers. But these two opposite outcomes leaves a wide range in between, the outcome of which will be determined by local conditions. We don't want peds on freeways any more than you would want cars on sidewalks.

But the LA Times dismissed complaints, including several by LA City Council members, as "typical city hall" obstruction and the reason "why so many ambitious plans remain unfulfilled." Sometimes ambitious plans are just not good plans. There are values placed on time and on safety, and these values vary significantly in the population. But are these solutions? Maybe Newport Beach had it right. Start in an area where there would be few negative impacts, even if the associated benefits are underwhelming. Don't try to teach an old dog new tricks. We all know that diets never work for people that really need them.

The forecast for Orange County is HOT on the 405, and that "T" stands for toll. "Toll with a capital 'T' and that rhymes with 'P' and that (no longer) stands for (car)Pool!" (apologies to The Music Man)

Over the last six months, the reporting and subsequent complaining about leaks has become manifold, with recent administration statements suggesting that these leaks are both undermining the administration and threatening "all law-abiding Americans." I for one feel more threatened when the administration threatens the press (this being the administration that publically claims that the press is all fake news yet somehow doesn't think that the leaked material being reported is not fake news).

I have but few questions regarding leaks of classified information (few rather than no questions, because there have always been issues regarding what information is classified). For other leaks, the question should not be "who?" but rather "why?" Subjecting all government information to the light of day, except for truly classified information, reflects a fundamental right, and a free press serves in this capacity. When embarrassing (but not legitimately classified) information is leaked, one must ask, first, why were these embarrassing activities occurring in the first place and, second, why do hand-chosen staff think it best to leak this information?

UC Irvine's Nicholas Marantz writes in an LA Times (1 August 2017) OpEd in response to several prior LA Times articles on housing problems in California (see Housing and Transport. Presenting what he thinks California's state legislature should do, Marantz mentioned a law passed in Massachusetts that "shifts some power over land use away from local governments that aren't meeting state affordable housing goals." Little was said relative to the state's ability to "shift some power" or whether local governments had any say in their bargain with their big brother, but Marantz does summarize the "good reasons that California and other states give local governments primary authority over land-use regulation" including that "local officials are best positioned to understand the effects of development on a given site and are best equipped to recognize the interests of current residents." Since research by Marantz shows that Massachusetts has been able to use their law to get some housing where it was needed, I think that he has also found the solution for California: those who can't find housing in California can move to Massachusetts. In the end, Marantz does offer an unsurprising caveat that the Massachusetts approach is not a panacea (housing is still a big problem there), but somehow thinks that California should consider the same. I like my solution better.

"Am I the only person who doesn't care about what (fill in the blank) did in (their) private life?" Thus began a letter in today's LA Times (23 July 2017) regarding a former USC Dean and alleged man about town (a letter likely written by a USC alum trying to close the ivory gates after the Puliafito Horse had already been celebrated within the hallowed walls of Troy). I wish the answer to that question was 'yes, you are the only person' who no longer feels that there is and must be a higher ethical standard imposed upon and embraced by those whom we elect, appoint, or acclaim as leaders, public figures, or heroes. But this would be wishful thinking since, while coins, crosses, and other emblems of honor and merit still shine brightly in harsh daylight, our society's values and ethics too often waver in the evening's shadows.

Regarding refusals to provide tax returns, the President said if any person "does not want to share this information, one has to wonder what they're worried about. There's something, there always is." Looks like the President is finally coming clean and will ... what, I misquoted? Oops, mea culpa. Yesterday's quote from the President was apparently expressed in response to a lack of support, from at least 20 states, for his voter fraud panel, and not in response to continuous calls to provide his tax returns. Furthermore, he said "if any state" and not "if any person." But he's right: where's there's smoke, there's usually fire, and one does indeed have to wonder.

Our President has long referred to any questioning regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election as a "witch hunt". But the more questions that are asked, the greater the wonder that there is more than just smoke (maybe a witch or two burning?). With virtually zero evidence of any voter fraud, this panel is primarily a means to divert attention from his and his associate's smoky business and political connections with Russia.

Our President, despite his complaints to the contrary, does indeed own Obamacare, in the same way that he now "owns" through inheritance every law, policy, and guideline of the federal government. Even more so since his administration's actions have served to continuously undermine the ACA Law. If he succeeds in repealing ObamaCare, then he will fully own the collapse of health care for 20-30 million Americans. This will truly be "repeal and disgrace."

Wishful thinking, apparently. The 2008 Great Recession brought with it declining vehicle miles traveled to complement the identification of "trends" that millennials did not want driver's licenses, or even cars, and were eschewing the suburbs for center cities. We heard of "Peak VMT" ... at least until 2014. Turns out that VMT is back to its prior growth rate and, while metropolitan areas continue to grow, it's not the core urban component that captures most of this growth. The last few years have produced the highest levels of domestic automobile sales ever. While there are many reasons, good and other, to associate miles driven, cars owned, and growth in the suburbs with a declining quality of life with respect to air quality, congestion, energy use, social ills, and other characteristics of a general decline of the American empire, this is no excuse to base predictions on short term perturbations and to place your cart of wishful thinking before your horse.

A headline in the LA Times (6 July 2017) states "Solve this puzzle to graduate." An algebraic factoring problem is presented with the stakes being a California community college degree and a potential transfer to a four-year college. Since "more than 3 out of 4 community college students in California cannot pass the placement exam" and must take remedial math courses, the oft-asked question is posed: "How necessary is intermediate algebra ... that most non-math and non-science students will rarely use in everyday life for the rest of college?" This is not a new question. What has changed is the general expectation that everyone needs to go to college to succeed in life. This expectation, however, does not seem to consider whether everyone is ready for college. Some valid questions, and some simple answers, are:

1. Q: Does everybody need to go to college?
   A: No. Everyone needs basic skills and creativity to succeed in life but college is only one path.
2. Q: Does everyone who wants to go to college need to master intermediate algebra?
   A: No. But everyone who wants to go to college does need to master abstract reasoning.
3. Q: Are college requirements somehow broken?
   A: Not necessarily, but if high schools are not producing students who are ready for college and while society expects them to succeed in college, then the problem rests with K-12 education, parents and students, and society in general. Colleges should not be responsible for remedial education.

Consider the well-regarded education system in Irvine, California. I've witnessed K-8 schools in Irvine exerting significant efforts to ensure that students learned the art of writing via an iterative process of writing and feedback. This is a good thing. But the very same system, which inexplicably started with multiplication tables up to 12 (in our base 10 world) would grade math problems by exchanging papers and classmates and grading answers right or wrong. Beyond the basics, math requires the same level of feedback learning that writing does, but few schools appear to provide this.

At UCI, general education requirements reflect common precepts for a liberal arts education, including one year in each of the following areas: (1) writing; (2) science and technology; (3) social and behavior sciences; (4) arts and humanities; and (5) quantitative, symbolic, and computational reasoning (as well as single course requirements in language, global studies, and multicultural studies. "The general education requirements are intended to help undergraduates place the specialized study undertaken in the major within a broader context. They are designed to cultivate the skills, knowledge, and understanding that will make students effective contributors to society and the world. The general education requirements should enable UCI undergraduates to apply the abilities developed in their studies to identify significant issues, gather and evaluate available evidence, analyze alternatives, reach conclusions, communicate the results effectively, and take considered actions." And that is as good of an explanation as I have seen as to why analytical reasoning is a needed skill. But does it have to be math?

One could try to argue that a humanities major may not ever need algebra, or a computer science major may not ever need to write an essay, or a dance major may not ever need to understand environmental science, or an engineering major may not ever need to apply psychology. And, at least directly, this may often be the case. But these people are diminished by lacking the insight and skills that completing these requirements would provide, and that earning a college degree represents.

Are there other ways to achieve some level of expertise in critical analysis? Of course. Fundamentally, these skills apply to many areas so reducing the "abstract" while maintaining the "critical" thinking means that courses in public health statistics, management decision problems, or computer algorithms would all provide the needed skills (UCI provides these and many other options to intermediate algebra). But please do not think that critical thinking is not needed. It most certainly is.

U.S. energy secretary Rick Perry, after touring a coal-fired power plant, offered his own version of simplified economics: "Here's a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow." This deservedly induced severe mocking, something that probably would not have happened had he instead toured a new freeway and made the same comment ...

In an LA Times OpEd (6 July 2017), Todd Gaziano and John Loo (the latter no stranger to controversy) claim "it's magical legal thinking to think that one president can't undo the declaration of another." And right they are, although they're completely missing the point. Presidential leadership, similar to that of the Supreme Court, must simultaneously exhibit legal correctness and reflect consistency, ethics, intelligence, and public support. Hitting one out of (at least) five will never make it. If there were good reasons for undoing a predecessor's actions, then by all means make the decision and provide the rationale, but Trump's attitude in usually just "because I can." This can quickly deteriorate into (rise to?) Monty Python on argument versus contradiction, or a SNL skit where today Bears Ears is a dessert topping and in four years it's a floor wax.

Housing, unlike transportation and many other urban services and most urban infrastructure, has rarely been seriously considered by engineers, typically falling under planning and policy. Housing, as a component of land use policy, has maintained this isolated nature in part because land use has been locally controlled ever since Euclid v. Ambler (1926), whereas transportation has usually featured local, regional, state, and federal involvement, and has done so assuming a land use plan as a given.

One of the first topics covered in transportation planning is the fundamental, derived-demand relationship between transportation and land use. So how has the interaction worked in practice? Municipal General Plans have dictated land use and the transportation infrastructure needed to accommodate those plans. In general, this has worked well as long as areas were not growing too fast or too slow so as to compromise the plan's balance between development and the transport system needed to accommodate associated travel demand.

In today's LA Times (4 July 2017), Liam Dillon writes about housing in an article provocatively entitled "California's 'elaborate shell game' on housing." A 50-year-old CA law requires local government to submit a housing development plan which must be updated every 8 years, with an apparent lack of any meaningful enforcement (this sounds quite similar to the SB375 requirement for a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Sandy Rosenberg did say that planners do too much too soon and are too proud of it.

The problem is an apparent lack of reporting on annual housing starts by local jurisdictions, possibly due in part to sloth but more likely due to inaction regarding what was promised. New housing depends on costs (land, labor, etc.), financing for builders and buyers, and having local areas and local developers see a win-win proposition. And this has always been a local decision so the resistance to state interference is understandable.

Dillon states that "more than two-thirds of California's coastal communities have adopted measures ... aimed at limiting residential development." This should not be a surprise to anyone since communities, even liberal ones, are mostly driven to prevent any actions that will erode community and housing values to protect the largest investment that most citizens will ever make. And this has been the case since Euclid v. Ambler that concluded that it was not an unreasonable intrusion into private property rights for a government to maintain the character of a neighborhood and in regulating where certain land uses could occur. Dillon quotes a UC Berkeley study which found that growth control policies raise housing costs by five percent. No word on what depreciation would result due to overbuilding or to undesirable changes in neighborhood character.

State "agencies outline how many new homes are needed [by] income levels." "So, in theory, all cities and counties would receive their fair share of growth." Really? This top down policy to find the lowest common denominator would likely only equalize misery. Dillon does conclude by stating that current law "doesn't hold cities accountable" as it should be since such state law would indeed "unfairly take away [local] power over development in their communities". What has often resulted are long commutes but this does not mean that rational decisions are not being. A woman in the article would like to live closer to her job but has chosen a long commute associated with a distant, larger, and cheaper home (the opposite, by the way, of what many Manhattanites choose: close, small, and expensive apartments).

Now, California state Senator Scott Wiener wants to change this via SB35, apparently by rewarding "good" cities and (somehow) penalizing "bad" cities (sounds rather Trumpian). There is this progressive if not utopian idea that government can make everything better, not by just leveling the playing field but by instructing all the players how and when to move. He seems unaware of the basic relationships between land and transportation, between the private and public sectors, and of the real estate mantra of "location, location, location." You may build it cheap, and sell it cheap, but you would have to regulate it to keep it cheap. And who wants their biggest lifetime investment to not be able to accrue in value? And who wants the public sector management costs of price controls. This is not just a southern California phenomena, nor even an American phenomena. It is the nature of life. I do agree with Weiner's last reported comment that the housing law is a "complete farce" except I take this Trumpian comment at its face value that such laws simply cannot work.

White House spokeswoman Sanders tweeted (29June2017) "The President in no way form or fashion has ever promoted or encouraged violence. If anything, quite the contrary." Ignoring contrary evidence in his campaign is one thing, but a Trump video post this week had him punching a person with the CNN logo as the face. The original video is ten years old and sophomoric humor, but the revision has a darker context. Trump's continued assault on decorum is deplorable but this is made worse by the unconscionable defense of this behavior by a range of administrative staff, Republican officials, and various Trumpundits. Thomas Bossert, a homeland security adviser to Trump, defends the CNN tweet by saying "there's a lot of cable news shows that ... [are] really not always fair to the President," as if this, true or not, justified bad behavior and its defense. This homeland security advisor then said "No one would perceive that as a threat" followed by "I hope they don't." And I hope that homeland security is not basing their behavior and actions on their hopes.

The Daily Caller (6/27, Bastasch) has quoted Energy Secretary Rick Perry as saying, "politically-driven policies, driven primarily by a hostility to coal, threatened the reliability and the stability of the greatest electrical grid in the world." People do not hate coal: many people do hate what happens to our environment when coal is burned, at least at the levels that today's global economy is burning coal (and other fossil fuels, which are not nearly as damaging to the environment as coal). Coal is on it's way out as an element of Perry's "greatest electrical grid in the world" and all because the market has cheaper current options (natural gas) and more promising future options (solar and other renewables). It has little to do with "hostility to coal". Look no further than California's 15 percent solar share to see the growing importance of solar. Slate.com reports that the bowling industry employs more workers than the coal industry and that there are more professional dancers (20,000) in the US than actual coal miners (15,000). Perry should wake up and smell the cleaner air.

Am I (yes, I know, most probably, I indeed am) the only one who is incredibly annoyed at the "new" style of web pages, a style that I can best describe as a very long vertical page, where a significant amount of embedded graphics (not necessarily ads) stream vertically, requiring significant scrolling to view? These pages often load quite slowly (on a Surface Pro 2 with Win 8.1 and an Ethernet connection) and occasionally crash the page (although that may be due to ads). Oddly, these sites seem to carry very little actual information (like an e-billboard). Am I missing something about the potential utility of this design? Is it perhaps a design better suited for cell and tablet formats? Or is it just to annoy me?

Secretary of Transportation Chao was unequivocal on announced program cuts to the federal New Starts program, stating "The administration does not support New Starts." New Starts have not involved P3s but are considered local issues by the current administration.

In Public Privatization news, the State of Indiana announced that they were terminating the P3 contact with I-69 Development Partners, headed by Spain-based Isolux Corsan. The project is behind scheduled with large cost overruns. The added costs may be somewhat reduced by better bond rates with the public sector in charge, but tolls will remain if not increase to pay for the project. At least the public right-of-way will remain in public hands.

Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee Chair Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla) said the Trump administration's plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system is "like handing the streets over to the taxicab commission right at the time when Uber and Lyft were entering into the market place." The proposal also calls for providing existing air traffic infrastructure free of cost to the private sector, which subcommittee member Price (D-NC) criticized as an "unprecedented give-away of (public) assets."

The Washington Examiner reports that Energy Secretary Rick Perry said "If you are going to be a wise, intellectually engaged person, being a skeptic about these issues is quite all right." Perry told CNBC that "he does not believe carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are the main driver of climate change," joining EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt "in casting doubt on the conclusion of some of the government's top scientists." The AP quotes Perry saying, "This idea that science is just absolutely settled and if you don't believe it's settled then you're somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective."

So what should "a wise, intellectually engaged person" make of all this? First, one should be skeptical of Tweedledum's and Tweedledee's motives regarding climate change opinions. Second, one should consider the source and qualifications of the speaker. And, third, one should be aware that climate change was likely a key factor in the extinction of the Neanderthals.

I'm always interested in articles about transportation that try to explain the various constraints, cost and benefits, and other issues associated with the ability of various supply technologies to address transportation demands. I pay particular attention when certain words are featured, such as monorail, gridlock, or seamless, which are usually used inappropriately. An article by Dakota Smith in today's LA Times (14 June 2017) considers the option of a monorail system in LA's Sepulveda Pass over the 405 freeway.

Many people think that monorail and elevated rail are one in the same but this is incorrect. Monorail means "one rail", a single beam used to provide support, guidance, and power to system vehicles. The nature of the technology is that it is always grade-separated, usually elevated. Any transportation system, however, including rail, bus, or cars, can use grade-separation to provide faster operations and increased safety. This confusion can be worsened by using the terms track and rail interchangeably. It's perhaps best to consider rail as an element of a track, such as conventional train tracks have two rails that provide support and guidance, while a monorail has one. Furthermore, systems such as the very few mag-lev systems in existence have wide single "tracks" but are usually not classified as monorail systems.

Smith quotes LA Mayor Eric Garcetti's statement that "monorails can" address steep inclines such as present in Sepulveda Pass but this is misleading. It is not the presence of a single rail that provides this grade-climbing functionality but rather the presence of rubber tires rather than steel wheels on steel rails (steel offers reduced friction for efficient "flat" operations but limits functionality with changes in grade). The grades in Sepulveda Pass are close to 6 percent which is also the likely limit for steel-wheeled rail systems. Rubber-tired systems may be able to handle steeper grades.

Perhaps the biggest problem with over-freeway systems are the presence of bridges, grade changes, and other infrastructure that would restrict elevated construction in the same right-of-way. If developed simultaneously, such as with Metro's green line in the I-105 median, sharing right-of-way is possible but this still places rail stations in the middle of the freeway, presenting pollution, noise, and access problems for rail travelers.

Monorail has been jokingly considered to always be the future of transit, as in never being the present. This "future promise" keeps monorail in the public eye but, while there are several dozen monorail systems in operation, with a few exceptions in China, Japan, and some oil-rich countries, most monorail systems serve tourist locations and amusement parks. BYD Skyrail has been mentioned as an option for LA but it is a lower capacity system (greater flexibility and lower cost are usually synonymous with lower capacity and lower speeds) that would not likely be appropriate for a high demand corridor such as Sepulveda Pass.

Over time, I have found one thing to be true about transportation. Just about everyone has substantial personal experience with travel and various transport systems, and this experience somehow translates to personal expertise. To quote Roger Creighton, "It is almost as if people delight in having an area in which anybody can speculate because nobody knows anything about the subject."

California will raise the state gas tax by 12 cents effective in November (and will also raise vehicle registration fees) with the funds dedicated to repair and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. It will provide much needed revenue for deteriorating infrastructure, with that revenue collected via traditional means. The gas tax has many benefits, including low administrative costs, dedicated funding, and a means to adjust the tax to inflation (the root of the original failing infrastructure problem). It also has the benefit of being easy to change, whether based on revenue levels or good ol' politics. Despite its name, the gas tax is a user fee, paid directly or indirectly by users. It is a fee that offers users a way to reduce fees by driving less or driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. I currently discard objections that electric vehicles do not pay gas taxes since this is an effective subsidy toward encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles (similar to allowing low emission vehicles to use HOV lanes, at least as long as we still have HOV lanes).

The LA Times (11 June 2017) reports that the California GOP is considering a ballot measure to repeal the tax. In general, I like the California ballot process but it has been unfortunately bastardized with both excess and inappropriate uses -- by inappropriate, I mean supplanting the responsibilities held by our elected representatives to enact appropriate legislation. First, just about everyone agrees that we need to repair and maintain our infrastructure, and user fees are usually seen as appropriate means to generate revenue regardless of political inclination. Supporters of limited government often wish to use such fees as leverage to address the cost, and regulatory reach, of government, particularly federal government. But this is a state issue (albeit in a progressive state that could use some serious debate on revenue and expenditures) involving dedicated user fees, so what is the issue? Well, it's politics in general: a mix of smoke and mirrors, get out the vote, distract voters from more important matters, and everything else that politicians, lobbyists, and big donors play with every day. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Someone once said that politics is the second oldest profession. I'm beginning to think it bears resemblance to the first."

The Guardian (6 June 2017) reports that British Prime Minister Theresa May "declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects." When human rights are gone, what remains is an authoritarian state with absolute power. Isn't this pretty much what most terrorists want in the first place?

Although I respond to many news articles and opinion pieces, and also often read letters to the editor, I do not usually read published reader responses to the same. An odd op-ed by Dianna Wagman printed in Tuesday's LA Times [23 May 2017] briefly caught my eye, as did the reader responses in Saturday's edition. Wagman described an "occupy Salem" mass spell-casting ritual which, to me, appeared oddly similar to many of the ways that many people are protesting actions taken by the current administration. While I would personally not expect her actions to be effective, I thought her explanation was.

So, while I was not surprised by the responses to her op-ed, I was a bit surprised by their rationales. One writer deplores Wagman for summoning "black magic" against Trump in these "scientifically enlightened times," apparently ignoring the fact that Trump and his appointees are the least scientifically-enlightened public decision-makers, possibly ever. Another writer concludes that "summoning evil against" Trump is not helpful while "many Americans are praying for this country," missing the subtle irony. A third writer criticizes those who "denigrate (Trump) personally, simply because they disagree with his policies," defending the denigrator-in-chief. There was one writer who wondered whether Wagman described the "selfsame methods" used by Middle America to elect Trump in the first place. Pots and kettles.

... not hear a "would you rather" question ever again, or watch the person who bastardized this game in flagrante delicto with a giant cockroach? I'm not referring to philosophical discussions but to ridiculously exaggerated if not impossible juxtapositions (such as the second half of the above). The advent of autonomous vehicles has produced a number of "would you rather" situations, perhaps the most prominent being the "runaway trolley about to run over five people tied to the tracks that you can save by effectively causing the death of a single, independent person." Supposedly these results would be important in designing autonomous vehicles (apparently more important than designing better braking systems).

A wrinkle on this game is suggested in a recent article in engadget which reports a study comparing responses to moral decision making by individuals using a smart phone versus a PC. I say wrinkle because, first, the same silly runaway trolley dilemma is posed and, second, since we all know that smart phone users, at least those who would even notice the developing situation, would instead be filming the trolley running over a hapless Nell Fenwick tied to the tracks rather than effecting any Dudley Do-Right rescue attempt (this comic analogy holds more relevance than appears on first glance). We have a meta-choice beyond the original dilemma. The article reports that smart phone users are more likely to choose the so-called utilitarian approach (take one life to save five).

The study's authors state that smart phone users "were more likely to make more unemotional, rational decisions when presented with a highly emotional dilemma." While I would agree with this result, the important conclusion was that it's the medium and not the message. Smart phones re-define engagement in social interactions by immersing many users full time in a "would you rather" world.

Monuments to confederate leaders are being removed from public places and, I hope, placed in museums where both the beliefs which these leaders held and the culture that perpetuated the conventions of the antebellum south and the myths of the civil war can serve as reminders of our continued evolution as a people. I have always been wary of awards and over-promotion of people, places, and products: very little in life is black and white. Which is why I am also very troubled by the over use of terms of recognition such as heroes and, increasingly, traitors. Perhaps it's simply a sign of the times when all things are pushed to the extremes and compromise fading with civility. But I do not think of every cop, fireman, soldier, and, well, anyone doing their job, even doing their job very well, as heroes. And I do not think that individuals who have acted as they felt they should have acted, serving as a Schrodinger's cat while history turns her cards to hero or traitor. Robert E. Lee is a good example, an individual dedicated, as many if not most Americans at that time were, to his home state of Virginia more than to the United States and the U.S. military. Can an individual who follows his heart, mind, and soul be a traitor and, if so, to whom or what? A letter writer in the LA Times [24 May 2017] calls him a "traitor who fought for one of the most morally reprehensible causes imaginable." I whole-heartedly agree with this description of the cause but whole-heartedly disagree with Lee being called a traitor. Our "heroes" from that age were equally imperfect, as all humans are.

Given Trump's proposals thus far, whether it be for tax policy, health care, the environment, or immigration, his apparent intent is to replace the swamp with a Trump country club for the white upper class to reap the benefits of Making America Great Again.

In today's LA Times, Aaron Renn calls for New Start rail transit funds to instead be directed toward maintaining current rail systems. Data suggests that overall transit ridership is declining in many areas, in part due to lack of systems maintenance (such as in San Francisco and Washington). A small increase in rail ridership in LA's expanding rail network is more than offset by declines in bus ridership. The call for infrastructure maintenance goes beyond transit systems, and includes many elements of the transportation system. Renn suggests that we "need more Old Maintenance and fewer New Starts". I concur and extend his call to highway systems, particularly the rush for HOT lanes and P3 toll projects which for decades will lock in these operations which require tolling schemes to pay for roadway infrastructure and thus limit both investment and use of public right-of-way toward more innovative options for transportation, such as connected and autonomous vehicles.

The Washington Examiner (4/25) reports that the Industrial Energy Consumers of America wrote to inform the White House that failure to leave the Paris accord "would hurt American industry." The letter said "All costs of reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions, whether imposed on the electric generation sector or the oil and gas sectors, are eventually imposed upon us, the consumer." Here, "consumer" means the industrial sector that purchases energy as an intermediate step in producing final demand. This is at least partially true: partial since most if not all of these costs would be passed on to the real consumers, the households that purchase the final products of American industry.

The question is "Who should bear these costs?" If environmental externalities are not born by the sector that creates them, then the final economic costs are distorted. Households, final demand consumers, get cheaper products but must bear the cost of polluted air and water and all the health risks that result. If the cost are passed through as a factor of production then, yes, the final consumers will face higher costs for these products, but reduced costs for the externalities of poor air, polluted water, and health problems.

Ronald Brownstein writes in today's LA Times that the long-standing expectation of a minimal education of 12 years is under increasingly pressure to be 14 years. Since the 12 year expectation was a public goal, the cost of this policy was borne by the public. Should the additional two years also be borne by the public?

It is not the years, it's the mileage. The 12 years that matches society's assessment of adulthood need not be extended in terms of education or other adult responsibilities and rights. The current 12 years need to be fixed. There is far too much remedial material in the two years of junior college to justify this as a public good when the funds should be applied to the first 12 years. High school graduates look better on paper than they ever had, until we compare the relative performance to other education systems and until we assess preparation for college-level education. It's the mileage associated with the first 12 years that is in dire need of our attention.

"In stunning transportation news this week, a doctor is ripped out of his paid seat on a flight, dragged along the floor off the plane because the airlines wanted the seat for an employee." Is this sort of statement, received on the US High Speed Rail Association (USHSR) email list, the best way to court support for the development of domestic HSR? The email also states "if you don't like how the airlines treat you, you can get in a car and sit for hours stuck in traffic! Those are the transportation options for most of America!"

While I would not be surprised if this sort of marketing works some of the time, and while there is a growing sense that this could be a new normal, is this how people, who are paid professionals, and their organizations developing systems for the public good, should be seeking support?

"Their base demands total war, total obstruction, and they are begrudgingly bowing to this demand. Unfortunately for them, it has proven difficult to invent attacks against an obviously well-qualified judge." Was this a quote from a Democratic senator after the Republican majority refused to consider Obama SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland, or was this from a Republican senator after the Democratic minority refused to support Trump SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch?

There are two perspectives being voiced regarding the first 100 days of President Trump. One perspective is utter disbelief that we have elected such an unpresidential president. The other perspective is that President Trump is, if anything, behaving precisely the way anyone paying attention over the past years would have expected. In a word: unpresidential. So it seems that everyone is getting what they should have expected, including Congress. The GOP is holding on to dreams of empire, while the Democrats perhaps are hoping for divine intervention, but both at least see the same person. The fundamental divide that has split this country and produced this Trumpian debacle has continued unabated, suggesting that the swamp that Trump promised to drain is still full, fetid, and frustratingly failing to represent the American people en mass. This, of course, is the real problem.

I'm not necessarily a fan of HOV lanes, but I am adamantly opposed to irrational attacks on a system that works as being "degraded" as a strategy to replace that system with something that likely could not be done on it's own merits. Or costs.

We've had another HOV lane of sorts running across domestic borders where citizens of other countries stream en masse across the US-Mexican border. There are many valid arguments that can be raised in opposition to this lack of control, but I find it surreal that Dana Rohrabacher (R, CA) is proposing a HOT lane for immigration as a means to destroy the current HOV lane. Selected individuals that want access and have the cash to pay for it can use the HOT lane: both in transportation and in immigration. In the latter case, a payment of $1 million by as many as 50,000 foreign nationals would grant them permanent citizenship. The resulting $50 billion would be used to build a wall, in theory eliminating today's HOV immigrants as effectively as HOT lanes eliminate carpoolers from the HOV lane.

One can argue the relative merits of HOV lanes and HOV borders, but are HOT lanes and HOT immigration something that anyone without excess cash can really support? We've seen the unfortunate step onto a slippery slope with the Senate exercising the nuclear option. Will they let Orange County's heir apparent to B1 Bob push us further down that slope?

It is bitterly humorous that a letter in the LA Times claimed that with Trump already campaigning for 2000 perhaps Congress should refuse to consider any future SCOTUS nominee, at least maintaining consistency with their actions with Obama's nominee Merrick Garland. All joking aside, it is abhorrent that we accept such an usurpation of executive power by the legislative branch regarding Garland and thus somewhat paradoxical that such a seizure is effectively what SCOTUS did over 200 years ago in claiming judicial review of federal legislation. The result will likely be that an "originalist," Gorsuch, will be named to the court to replace another originalist, the late Antonin Scalia.

The SCOTUS power of judicial review was not formally present in the Constitution and only claimed by the Court in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Odd then that originalists have no problem exercising this ultimate judicial review despite that right not being explicitly part of the original constitution. This point has been long debated. On matters of state legislation, judicial review was given to SCOTUS, but it was not assigned to SCOTUS for congressional legislation. An originalist would thus judge federal legislation reflecting what the framers meant at the time the constitution was written while exercising a power that was not given to SCOTUS by the framers at that same time.

One should always get a second opinion when facing household repair cost estimates. What I can't seem to get a grip on are the job estimates which are used to help justify many public work projects. A recent $647 million request by California's Caltrain has been put on hold by the Trump administration. Caltrain claims that, according to The Hill, the project would "support over 9,600 Americans, not only in California, but in states including Utah, Virginia, and Pennsylvania."

My questions are, first, does this means, as some have reported, that this is 9,600 jobs? Second, are these full time, permanent jobs? Because $647 million divided by 9,600 jobs equals about $67,396 per job, assuming that the entire budgeted amount goes to salary and not to materials, overhead, profit, or other expenses. And this would be for one year. Such estimates are almost always questionable, not just for the accounting questions, but since they suggest that this particular project is justified based on the jobs. But the federal government spending this amount in California would generate the equivalent number of jobs regardless of the project in question. For example, fixing dams, roads, or urban utilities with this money would have the same job numbers and, arguably, a much greater economic (and perhaps social) impact.

Families, clans, tribes; fraternities, blue walls of silence, political parties. Heritage, self-preservation, strength in numbers; us against them, power, corruption.

The concept of opting out is almost always illogical. Choices can be made to opt-in to something, but the default should be that you are not participating. Particularly when it is so clear most anyone would opt-out, such as "allowing" the sharing of your private information with anyone for any reason. There is a rather big and obvious exception: when "opting-in," usually via birth, to being a citizen of one's home land, one then opts-in to a package deal (following the laws and paying taxes are prime components). What would opting-out of this entail? It would seem nothing less than physically and permanently leaving the country, as well as relinquishing legal rights of citizenship. Otherwise, you've opted-in.

While any party is free to work within the system to change the system, while you're part of the system, you are subject to the laws of the system. Currently that system requires taxes to support, among many things, public defense, public roads, and public schools. No one should be able to opt-out of paying for any of these public goods, whether they use them or not. School vouchers are a form of opting out, in that the taxes owed are returned to you to spend on non-public schools. Should a citizen who feels that public transit is failing be able to opt-out and receive a voucher that could be used toward paying tolls or buying a car?

California's AB63 proposes to extend California's Graduated License Law to 20 year-olds. While prior legislation applied to 16 and 17 year-olds reduced the accident and death rates for this age group, the corresponding rates for 19 and 20 year-olds increased. Some have claimed that this older group is waiting to obtain a license to avoid the current law's restrictions. It is more likely that the reduced driving experience with the younger group combined with the lack of restrictions on the older group produces the noted increase in accident and fatality rates. Regardless of the real reasons, the proposed bill would simply shift the impact another two years down the proverbial road. There are many reasons why teens and young adults exhibit different behaviors than preceding generations: everything is changing and these groups are at precisely the age when most personal evolutions and revolutions occur. New laws rarely address such problems and almost certainly introduce more problems. Just say no.

From Nixon's 1969 inaugural speech:

"To lower our voices would be a simple thing. In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words: from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading. We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another."

Keep fossil fuels in the ground and missiles in the silos. We can weather the rest.

A Washington Post / ABC News national poll last week suggests that there's little support for tolls as a mechanism for funding the incoming administration's huge infrastructure plans. BondBuyer reports that the tolling plan was "strongly opposed by 44 percent" and "somewhat opposed by 22 percent". One could argue that the 11 percent that strongly supported the Trump proposal correspond to those who favor Public Private Partnerships and those who dislike automobiles (parties whom would make strange bedfellows). And something tells me that one of the last things that unemployed white men from middle America would want to see are tolls on their interstates.

There's little need to regurgitate that tolls are a valid means to generate revenue and control demand, but that tolls also are regressive taxes and favor the wealthy. Although toll collection is no longer a major limitation, wide-spread deployment would have many problems. But the real issue here is not tolls per se, rather, it's tolls as profit generators for the private sector while the public sector bears the risk. Every dollar gained by the private sector in profits is one less dollar toward transportation infrastructure improvements.

Two bills in the California legislature are addressing increases in the state gas tax to pay for infrastructure maintenance needs. The gas tax is in place, accepted by the public, provides a means of addressing increases by moving toward more fuel efficient cars, and can easily be reduced or eliminated at any time when a better funding mechanism comes along (Repeal and defer? Did I just say that?).

Turning over limited public roadway right-of-way to private sector profits makes as much sense as leasing Yosemite for 40 years to Time Warner. Let's hope that we don't soon hear "say your prayers, varmint."

Addendum: A second poll by Reuters said that most Americans want a federal infrastructure program that is focused on improving existing roads and bridges, with less interest in mass transit, new roads, and new technology. This poll was split between those whom did not want a higher tax bill or government borrowing to pay for infrastructure, with half preferring tolls and user fees and nearly as many whom did not. The population does not seem to realize that, ultimately, it will be consumers who will pay for these improvements, whether via general taxes, fuel taxes, tolls, or higher prices on all goods as the cost trickles down. This is why government must make the decision on what is best for the American public and the American economy, and what is the best way to cover the costs.

The Wall Street Journal, referring to the state's high speed rail project as "California's Big Dig," called for presumptive U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao to cut federal funding for the project. Boston's Big Dig was plagued by obscene cost overruns, something for which California's HSR is clearly on track.

In the LA Times (15 Jan 2017), Johann Hari attributes the domestic opioid prescription drug crisis not to the physically addictive qualities of these drugs but rather to the increase of people whom are "distressed and disconnected" turning to "anesthetics to cope with psychological pain." Hari's article provides evidence to support this claim and makes one think that reactions to a continued exposure to psychological pain might be turning others toward similar immediate but false prophets for addressing pain such as radicalization and terrorism.

For the fifth time in 45 first run presidential elections, the popular vote did not matched the electoral college results. This is Russian Roulette: a revolver with nine chambers and one bullet. And who would have thought that the name of this game was so appropriate?

In his Sunday LA Times column, Michael Hiltzik reports on a decision by UC San Francisco to outsource about half of its IT jobs to the Indian outsourcing firm HCL Technologies. State Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) said "UC is training software engineers at the same time that they're outsourcing their own software engineers." We'll train our citizens at their own expense but we'll only hire lower paid international engineers to work overseas? Really?

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) recently found that between 2011 and 2014, the number of black college students in the state decreased by 13 percent. A few paragraphs later, the Sac Bee article added that "the number of white college students in California has declined at a similar rate since 2011." The decline in black enrollments was partly "explained" by the collapse in the for-profit education sector in California which had enrolled a "fifth of all black college students ... compared with fewer than 1 in 10 whites." The article further states that "only a third of black high school students complete the eligibility requirements for UC and CSU." This seems to place the problem, at least for blacks, directly in high schools. But the article does not address why white enrollments are declining.