High Speed Rail. How quickly we have moved from the proposal for a "bullet train" that would provide service competitive to airlines between southern and northern California, to questioning the constraint in the original legislation to achieve speeds required to be competitive. If you want High Speed Rail, then it must be grade-separated, with very few stops, integrating expensive technologies, and using a lot of energy, and thus it will be expensive. Sort of like air travel.

There are a lot of misleading or meaningless buzz words in transportation, including "intelligent", "smart", and "managed lanes", but High Speed Rail is not one of them. California's system must be high speed, as dictated in the authorizing legislation. And it should not have taken 15 years and $80 million to get to this decision point. If it cannot compete with other modes, then it should not be built.

Why is it that decision-makers at higher levels of education continue to address problems at lower levels by providing funding at the higher level where the problem is observed but not at the lower level where the problem is created? If there are not enough engineers graduating, it is not because students are finding more appropriate degree programs with similar demands and benefits. It is because either they aren't enticed by engineering in the first place or they are not properly prepared when entering engineering programs. This includes students in all demographic cohorts. Any "affirmative action", regardless of how urgently needed, must start at the beginning: until we have the best STEM-related educators teaching our children in K-12, with hands-on experience in science, technology, engineering, and math, we will not have the necessary numbers of students suitably prepared for our STEM programs. Any attempt to entice unprepared college-aged students to enter or remain in a STEM program is short-sighted and will simply perpetuate the 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.

The LA Times [9dec2011] reports that 2010 domestic traffic fatalities reached a 61-year low, decreasing to 32,885 (2.9 percent) relative to 2009, despite a 1.6 percent increase in VMT. This reduction in large measure is due to improvements in both vehicle technology and roadway design. Of note was the corresponding data for fatalities in incidents involving drunk drivers, which although showing a 4.9 percent reduction over 2009 still amounts to 10,228 lives lost. In comparison, only 3,092 fatalities were classified as “distraction-affected", which includes texting or cell phone usage and related causes. It sure seems that directly addressing these suspect driver behaviors is the way to make significant decreases in fatalities, rather than trying to reduce overall driving, which would essentially be "throwing out the baby with the bath water".

The proposal for High Speed Rail in California was welcomed by many. Although I harbored a good deal of scepticism, I waited to see how the forecasts of cost and revenue would evolve over time. Few have been surprised at the cost increases (from $33 to $98 billion) but even fewer have reconsidered the associated revenue side. Based on initial ridership estimates, there was sufficient demand projected to cover cost after a few years of operations. Whether this was an overly optimistic estimate is moot now that cost has tripled. Either ridership or fares would also have to triple, or the public sector would be on the hook for the difference. A BIG difference.

I don't understand much of this mortgage mess. It looks like many people were sold the unfounded dream of endlessly rising home values, that many people made an awful lot of money on this, and that many lives have been devastated, financially and emotionally. But there's a plan afoot to help people who, while underwater on their mortgage, are current on their payments. This suggests that their income remains sufficient to make mortgage payments, although they're now paying for something that isn't worth what is was when they bought it (hmmm, sounds like every car loan ever made). The problem, apparently, is that it's difficult if not impossible to refinance underwater loans. So the government will step in to help. But what happens when the housing market recovers and these mortgages are no longer underwater? Does the government get a share of the profits? I think this is part of the Occupy movement. I don't think it's wealth per se that has pissed off people but, rather, it's the way this wealth was attained. Those that made a killing leading up to the bubble bursting certainly realize this, but don't expect them to fess up.

Marlon Boarnet blogs on transportation in Los Angeles going "off the grid" and quotes an MPO figure that 70 percent of revenue is now from local sources. I'm not so sure that the "on the grid" to "off the grid" transition is so clear since the vehicle side has always been and will likely remain predominantly "off-the grid". While local infrastructure can move "off", it still requires the background network to be fully on (consider the internet analogy). It's the "on" that has reduced highway fatalities by 40 percent in decades characterized by huge increases of exposure (VMT).

These local funds are predominantly county level sales tax revenues. Over half the cost of routine road maintenance in Orange County cities comes from local sales tax revenues. These local cities are dependent on county funds in a manner similar to local transit agencies being dependent on federal operating support. If LA is going "off the grid" it will be more important to recognize the hierarchy within the local level.

Cornell Economist Robert Frank writes in today's LA Times (18Oct2011) that he would honor Charles Darwin and not Adam Smith as the founder of contemporary economics. He draws an analogy between Darwin's theory of natural selection and Smith's "invisible hand". Both, Frank argues, favor individual success that can lead to group success. However, when individual and group interests conflict, "individual interests generally trump group interests." Natural selection makes "no presumption that the process promotes the common good." Frank concludes the analogy by stating that "the modern conservative's case for minimal government rests on the assumption that competition always promotes society's welfare", but that this competition presumption does not hold water. Last month (8Sept2011) I criticized Rick Perry's belief that we have to first grasp the science before we jeopardize the economy and I further offered the antithesis. Is Frank suggesting that the science and the economics may be one in the same?

A California Assemblyman asked the question: How do tax increases create jobs? The antithesis is equally valid: How does decreasing taxes create jobs? The key remains, what ever the policy, does it work? Businesses can be given incentives to creating jobs (tax credits, reduced taxes, etc.), in a manner that only a net increase in domestic jobs would count. Jobs would be classified as full- or part- time, and by salary level, with incentives set accordingly. Seems rather simple and avoids this constant argument over what is more effective. Just measure it!

A recent study conducted at UC Berkeley concludes that the elimination of permits for LEVs to use carpool lanes in California has made traffic worse for all users. The LEVs banished to the gulag of the General Purpose Lanes, of course, suffered the most, but solo denizens of the General Purpose lanes were also worse off from sharing their already congested space with the banished LEVs. But it turns out that "real" carpools now take longer to cross the more congested gulag to the safety of the HOV lane. It's a question of relative distribution: a more uniform distribution of traffic seems to offer higher overall performance.

HOV lanes have not been successful in encouraging carpooling (with rare exceptions, such as right here in Orange County). These lanes, however, do appear to have been successful in getting more people to purchase LEVs, with associated air quality benefits for all. So what do we do with all these HOV lanes? We could consider the original intent of freeways to move long distance drivers through a region (rather than give locals a convenient alternative to driving two miles to the grocery store) by limiting access/egress spots to major interchanges (in opposition to arguments for continuous access to HOV lanes). Not being a conspiracy theorist, I won't say that it was all a ploy to build a network of toll roads (but stranger things have happened). Or we could just let the LEVs come back from the gulag.

From my very first course in transportation to the present, I've read about the disruptive impact of highways on urban communities, especially in the 70s when Interstate spurs and beltways, elevated or below-grade, split the social fabric of many neighborhoods. Racial and income biases were usually present. Most people shake their heads in disbelief that communities were sacrificed for the greater good of the motoring public.

What I've never seen discussed is a similar impact of road building. How many communities ceased to exist when roads were not built? When the links of the first federal highway system were selected, as with the more familiar interstate system that followed, states and communities lobbied for roads to include them directly on the network. But many towns and cities were bypassed, left to wither in history. How many towns, how many jobs, and how many lives were changed forever by these decisions? And why to we look wistfully on a Route 66 or a Lida, Nevada as a valued part of our collective history but in shame at the urban equivalent?

Today's LA Times (1Oct2011) reports "It's three feet long, weighs eight pounds" in referring to NASA's new GALE, an "unmanned aircraft". Unmanned. Do ya think?

Tomorrow is "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" where religious organizations will claim their right to be politically active, as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. This, I trust, will be followed by "Freedom from Tax Exemptions Monday" since there is no such right in our Constitution. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.

Pensions and pay. Double and even triple dipping. It's often politicians that retire with a public pension and then are reappointed to an often well-paid position, while still drawing their pension. This is one of many issues with a seemingly simple answer. Pensions are for retirement and it should begin when you retire, or at least when you reach a "reasonable" retirement age (the devil is in the details on what is reasonable). The problem is compounded by politicians looking to cut spending and who promise to cut wasteful positions, but who then appoint cronies to various boards that pay quite well. Arnold did it, Jerry did it. And their appointees seem to think that they are the only ones who can do these unnecessary jobs. A sure sign of senility -- maybe they should retire... oh, yeah.

At the GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Texas Governor Rick Perry said "Let's find out what the science truly is before you put the American economy in jeopardy." I personally find it odd that in his last conversation with God when Perry was told to run for president, he was not told that it is science and not economics on which we have a firm grasp. I suggest he consider what the economics truly is before he continues to to put science, and his reputation, in jeopardy.

An LATimes Editorial [16may2011] lauded a report from the State of California's Legislative Analyst's Office criticizing the state's High Speed Rail Authority, finally showing that perhaps the largest problem in transportation planning is simply the political process in which it occurs. I often have commented on the utter lack of elected positions in transport and on the redundancy of agencies with overlapping charges (see TCA, OHR, 15 March 2009). This is well illustrated by the HSRA: political appointees charged with overseeing not only a portion of one of the largest public works projects ever proposed but also billions of dollars of public support. It's not as if we don't have agencies in place for precisely this responsibilities (e.g., Caltrans). On the other hand, large agencies can become too large (e.g., Caltrans).

The expression "an untimely death" has always seemed superfluous, but I now see that the obverse can be most appropriate.

I received an e-mail from an academic department at another university which stated:

"Our records show that you haven't opened our recent mailings.
We value your support and want to actively protect your privacy."

Ironic, no? Apparently, my privacy does not include actively tracking my e-mails to see whether I'm reading them or not! After I complained, they responded that "everybody does it" (where have I heard that before?) and that they were protecting their system as well as my account from spammers (since I never signed up for their list in the first place, does this make them spammers?). Then "my IT people" said that my (archaic) e-mail software does not allow such tracking, so maybe the fact that they could not track my e-mail opening behavior was mistaken for, as they assumed, simply not opening it. I don't have answers; but I do have two questions.

First, why is the concept of public and private so difficult to understand? Why the concept of "opt-out" even exists is beyond any conceivable rationale other than someone wants to make money from violating your privacy.

Second, your web browsing behavior can be tracked via cookies, but web browsers provide the option to turn off cookies. Your behavior won't be tracked (although you may not have access to certain sites that require cookies). Why does this not exist for e-mail? Or, if it does, why is it not well known? And for the record, I do not use Google's g-mail and my *.edu e-mail address is from the same university system as the list's owner and, I assume, is more controlled and thus more difficult to violate. Google has said something to the effect of: "Privacy doesn't exist anymore. Get used to it." Easy for them to say, as they profit from just what they're promulgating.

A recent ASEE First Bell (ASEE, 3mar2010) reports:

"Cities Redesigning Themselves To Avoid Use Of Highways"
The Christian Science Monitor (3/3, Kutner) reported urban planners are now exploring ways of redesigning cities that does not include highways that do not cross through the center of the city. These planners "are hoping to get some help from federal transportation programs (though budget-cutters in the US House have this program in their sights), as well as from local and state sources." City officials are considering these makeovers because highways that were built after World War 2 are wearing down and, according to Joseph DiMento, a professor of planning and law at the University of California, Irvine, there is "a growing faith that urban centers, including some that have been long neglected, have development potential." Highways, such as Baltimore's "highway to nowhere" are responsible for tearing "apart the social fabric of the community," according to Jamie Kendrick of the Baltimore City Department of Transportation, who said the city will replace it with a light-rail system and parking lots."

Hmmm. Where do we start? Start with an incorrect and misleading title, throw in multiple grammatical errors in the first sentence, let on that it is a plea for funding rather than actual activity, suggest that highways are wearing out for reasons other than they were designed to do so after a accurately designated lifespan, then indirectly suggest that the building infrastructure of cities is somehow different from that of roadways and thus immune to decay, and then to quote my good friend Joe Dimento ("Say it ain't so, Joe") who claims a "growing faith" (hallelujah! born again planners! the end is near) in the potential of urban centers, and highways are apparently STILL tearing "apart the social fabric of the community" so the big city decides to replace the highway with LRT and PARKING LOTS!

Holy strawberries, Batman. Now we're really in a jam!

The LA Times reported that domestic demand for gasoline is "believed to be at the start of a long-term decline. By 2030, Americans will burn at least 30% less gasoline" than today, attributed to greater fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. Didn't say who did the study, but this would be the first real decline in over 70 years. This after reports that traffic fatalities have dropped significantly to under 33,000 per year, the lowest in decades. Both of these changes are despite significant increases, and projections of continuing increases, of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). So why do planners and policymakers continue to look at VMT as an indicator variable? The only direct VMT link seems to be with mobility, and that used to be a good thing.

Le Roi est morte; vive le Roi! As December began so did the once and future uncertainty of high speed rail, or any form of fixed guideway transit, at least for system-wide deployment. With Obama administration and DOT secretary LaHood an outspoken champion, HSR and its companion federal dollars are on Santa's list for many states. Consider California. Over the past few years, we've had a $10 billion state bond proposition pass, competing proposals for high speed rail from southern California to Las Vegas, and, of course, all sorts of politics and associated conflicts of interest. And now the California High Speed Rail Authority board has announced the first HSR link, a 65 mile "starter line" that has quickly been dubbed "the train to nowhere".

What are the problems? Well, ignoring the fact that the two end points are indeed as close to nowhere as anyone could possibly imagine, at least when considering rail systems planning, the analogy made to the interstate highway system as beginning the same way is inappropriate since a comprehensive highway system was already in existence so that virtually any "starter" interstate segment would be effective. Second, it does not appear that any of California's HSR efforts will actually be "high speed" rail. Faster than current domestic rail, perhaps, but in many cases only marginally so. Third, and most important, the estimated cost, even if entirely accurate -- and let's face it, such estimates are at best teasers and at times border on fraud -- is simply too great. California does not and will not have $40-50 billion to field test the potential effectiveness of a "not high speed rail" system.

Expenditures for transportation infrastructure has often been justified with promises of job creation, but there are many transportation infrastructure projects that could serve this goal, such as replacing every structurally deficient bridge and supporting existing bus transit throughout California.

In the LATimes [23Nov2010], Steve Lopez describes the proposed "subway to the sea" as a fitting moniker for a city whose "train to the airport ... doesn't go all the way to the airport". The "STTS" would stop about 3 miles short, leaving what would be one of the highest ridership corridors in LA unserved by rail. And UCLA a tempting half mile away. Transportation improvements always seem to be about what can be done and not what should be done, in large measure due to the incremental nature of the game.

Abu Dhabi, which has a less developed transport infrastructure than Dubai and suffers chronic congestion problems, is expected to spend $68 billion from 2010 to 2015 on public transport alone [Saifur Rahman, gulfnews.com, November 22, 2010]. Nicely juxtaposed with Off-hand Remarks before and after this one, we see the big difference being cash. Lot's of it. For decades, we've put our's in our gas tanks; they found their's in the sand. One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Ironic.

"That's what people want."
At a transportation symposium in Peoria, USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood referred to high speed rail as a signature program of the Obama administration. "It's gonna happen. The train's left the station," he said. "Not because Ray LaHood says it. Because that's what people want." Whom these people are was not made clear. Will it play in Peoria? Apparently, yes.

The ASCE Smart Brief quotes a Grist interview with USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood who says: "I grew up in an era [of] livable neighborhoods and livable communities... When there was no urban sprawl, when you didn't have to have three cars, when there weren't houses with 3-car garages, everybody had one car." First, Lahood's 1950's Peoria childhood was precisely when "sprawl" began, along with the decline of public transit, the growth of the suburbs, and the decline of the inner city. Second, the marketing of car ownership and sprawl was and remains a hallmark of the American capitalist system. People did not ask for it, although they clearly responded with their wallets open (an all too familiar trend in the continuing saga of American capitalism). When women began to enter the workforce, in part to afford the lifestyle they had been sold, car ownership increased. These changes, however, have utlimately been income driven. These were choices made by consumers. And now LaHood says people are making different choices. Choices for sustainable living, public transit, walkable communities, etc. This is no more than a new marketing approach to continue the trend. And I suspect that people, while they may be responding for these options, are likely thinking in terms of complementary goods and not as substitutes. Very few people are trying to get rid of their cars so they can walk or take a bus, although such communities, if marketed well, may result in some of these changes. But I think it's putting the cart before the horse. Let's just hope we don't end up relying on carts and horses.

In a LA Time OpEd [27Oct2010], UCLA's Don Shoup proposes a graduated parking fine system. The more tickets you accrue, the more each one costs. Shoup provides data that show that a relatively small proportion of drivers account for a disproportionate share of parking violations. He also suggests that the requisite technology to track violations is already available. In calling for stronger punishment for serial violators, Shoup notes California's three strike (felony) law. While he says "no one should receive a life sentence after three parking tickets", it does make one wonder, given Don's, uh, "alternative" views on parking, if he was referring to "a life sentence" as not being appropriate or to the number "three".

"Aggressive, Timid Drivers Are Major Sources Of Traffic Jams, Researchers Say." So reports The Daily Telegraph (19sept2010), which also said researchers "found that when drivers changed their speed, they caused drivers further back to change their speed. The change in speed passed like a wave, backwards through the traffic." Wasn't this stuff done back in the 1950s? The research was published, however, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Royal Society? Perhaps my cynicism is unwarranted, since this research apparently is deserving of Newtonian acclaim. I had to dig deeper, and with such cutting edge reporting, I stuck with the Telegraph, which two years earlier (4 Mar 2008) reported research published in the New Journal of Physics that concluded "the real origin of traffic jams is (often) simply the result of there being too many cars", which the Telegraph (cynical bastards themselves) headlined "Science of the bleedin' obvious".

The Telegraph also reported (Chivers, 9 Jul 2010) that a team of MIT mathematicians have developed "equations, similar to those used to describe fluid mechanics, (to) model traffic jams as a self-sustaining wave. Variables such as traffic speed and traffic density are used to calculate the conditions under which a (traffic jam) will form and how fast it will spread." What are these "equations" that thou speak of? I needed to dig deeper, perhaps finding reports of wheels being re-invented, but I found a hint of even bigger things. Chivers (29 Jun 2010) reported that a flying car is going into production! Alas, no comment was made regarding aggressive or timid pilots, nor new insight on the relevance of fluid mechanics on aerial traffic flow, or simply having too many flying cars on the, uhh, road?

In a recent article, The WSJ revisited "triple convergence" – a Downsian construct invoked by Martin Wachs that says new capacity is consumed by drivers who had previously changed to different modes, routes, or times-of-day to avoid congestion but whom now return to their original travel behavior to utilize the new capacity. The conclusion was that the new capacity had no benefit. The output of a transportation system is flow, which is measured in terms of both volume and level-of-service. New capacity accommodates increased volumes, perhaps at a similar level-of-service (that is, congested). As I have commented ad nauseam, judging "failure" of an investment that is exceeding its volume goals is foolish, parallel to judging new schools that are immediately overcrowded as failures. The multiple dimensions of travel choice include mode, route, and time-of-day and the results of drivers behaving rationally should not be taken as a bad thing. There are legitimate arguments regarding policy and pricing, but we need to all be on the same page with regard to fundamental understanding first.

The Week (20aug2010) reports that in 2008 the City of Chicago sold its future parking revenues to investment bank Morgan Stanley for $1.15 billion dollars. Downtown meter fees recently were increased from $3 to $4.25 per hour, increasing the expected take for Morgan Stanley to $11.6 billion dollars by the time the contract expires in 2084 (on a particularly Orwellian centennial). More meters per block, more hours metered per day, and higher rates would be just what one would expect under such privatization. Some may argue "good, parking and automobile controls are just what's needed," while humming the Shoup Shoup Song (did I spell that right?). But these same investment bank profits could have been supporting transportation improvements in Chicago. As many public entities look to unload public property in the current economy, they should look down the proverbial road a little bit further before they take that first step (my apologies to my colleague DS).

Tony Judt died this month and the LATimes (9 Aug2010) quoted the following from his last public lecture: "Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For 30 years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest... The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears 'natural' today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all, the rhetoric which accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets, disdain for the public sector, and delusion of endless growth." The revolution was televised; and the collective "we" lost.

The City of Irvine, with regard residential, commercial, and all other land uses save open space, was designed for the automobile. This is not an argument for or against the automobile or any form of public transit; rather, it is an observation of the transportation and activity systems. Roadways, organized in an hierarchical fashion, feature broad rights-of-way, multiple turn lanes, advanced traffic control, and land access defined by facility type. Land use is highly segregated, organized by transportation access, and provides ample parking. While sidewalks line virtually all roadways, there is a significant distance separating roadways from buildings, limiting pedestrian access, and in turn, transit access. This is not to state that public transit and non-motorized modes do not have a role, even a significant role, current or future, within the City. But it does say that current travel behavior is strongly linked to current infrastructure and, thus, changing either behavior and/or infrastructure will be both difficult and costly.

But to define a role for non-automotive transportation in Irvine, where should one start? First and foremost, the start should be with land use and infrastructure, but any changes must be supported by market forces and a willingness to alter travel behavior. Land use changes are strongly evident in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), as this area is slowly but steadily evolving from single-story, campus-like office, commercial, and industrial space to multi-story, urbanized, mixed use complexes. In general, a 180 degree turn from Irvine's status quo. The IBC also borders Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, so externalities of dense growth, such as traffic congestion, will spill into these areas. The nature of this residential growth will be greatly limited by housing prices and access to conventional amenities, including the Irvine Unified School District, which will not serve much of this area. I do not see this particular growth lending itself to non-automotive transportation. While the City has always had a balance between jobs and housing in terms of totals, there are no mechanisms that can match jobs to housing in a one-to-one fashion. Residents in any part of the City are as likely to work elsewhere as City employees are likely to live elsewhere.

So what's the master-planned community to do? It has proposed the expansion of an existing bus-based shuttle system. In a recent Irvine World News article (3July2010), Mayor Kang states: "As population grows obviously traffic will get worse." He then adds "I think this (the expanded shuttle) will take a lot of cars off the street." The statements raise two critical questions. First, traffic is a second order effect. Population and employment beget traffic; excessive population and employment beget excessive traffic (congestion). While traffic congestion can be an indicator of a healthy economy it is also an indicator of poor planning: not necessarily poor transportation planning but poor integrated planning. The automobile-oriented plan for Irvine has worked thus far, with residential and employment areas having limited (albeit increasing) traffic congestion.

Before I address this point further, consider the second part of Kang's statement: "It will take a lot of cars off the street." There are only two ways to address such problems as traffic congestion: either increase supply or decrease demand. Adding transit capacity increases supply. So would adding capacity to current roads. But somehow, adding transit capacity will take cars off the road but adding road capacity will only increase traffic! Both measures will accommodate latent demand by increasing system capacity and by not addressing demand. One could argue that such transit will have only a marginal impact in taking cars of the road, but this is not the point. What ever road capacity is gained will serve as a draw for added road traffic, as long as the demand is there. I am not advocating adding road capacity. I'm merely stating that such uninformed opinions are misleading at best. The cost of each alternative relative to the benefit provided must be fully assessed before overall system impact can be estimated. Given the current transportation infrastructure and land development, any growth of jobs or housing in the IBC will lead to increased congestion. Infrastructure expansion, especially a shuttle system, will not be able to accommodate the growth with out behavioral changes in residents and employees alike. The bottom line is that population and employment growth must be controlled, or forced to pay the marginal cost of increased congestion and any infrastructure improvements so that demand is properly priced. The City has a plan for growth, but the ability of the transportation system to accommodate this growth has now been exceeded.

If transit is to be pursued, it must be done at the regional level. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides county-wide transportation planning and transit service, and coordinates with other agencies on a regional level. While it is true that the City is working with OCTA, one must question the viability of the proposed iShuttle system expansion based on the excessive costs of providing each ride (estimates of $19 per trip have been publicized). When one talks of "green" alternatives and sustainability, one can not simultaneously talk about a deficit of $19 everytime a rider boards a bus.

City Councilman Larry Agran states in the same Irvine World News article: "The one missing element to Irvine's outstanding planning has been a failure to create a comprehensive public transit system." The problem is that the initial vision of City and Irvine Company planners, that of an automobile-oriented community, has produced an infrastructure and land use pattern in which conventional forms of transit can not compete. Guideway transit, light rail, and other alternatives have been proposed and have failed to garner support. Even with a land use pattern that could support transit, it is unclear that sufficient Irvine residents and employees would change their behavior, at least under current pricing.

The last large scale public transit system supported by the City Council was Centerline, the OCTA-sponsored proposal for a light rail system from Fullerton, through Santa Ana and Costa Mesa, to Irvine. Irvine residents objected (with a range of reasons, many of them quite silly, but objected never-the-less) and the Council opinion came down to what essentially would be a rail system to provide access for non-residents to Irvine jobs, but would not "intrude" in Irvine's existing residential communities. This would not have been a "comprehensive public transportation system", nor would it address exactly how to get non-residents to use the system to get to their Irvine jobs. And it does not consider how these non-residents would be able to access other Irvine business before, during, or after work without a car in an automobile-oriented city.

Financing will likely be the biggest issue, as it will for California proposals for High Speed Rail. Big ideas should be encouraged, but reality needs to be reflected in all plans and proposals. And most of all, wishful thinking cannot form the basis of public policy.

In the Washington Post, Steven Pearlstein concludes that the "fundamental truth about Wall Street firms is that they succeed by having better information than most of their customers." This information is gained by experience that follows from position. The very wealthy have more information, more expediently, and are thus more readily able to capitalize on opportunities that most of us will never see. This extends into politics, where the support structure around politicians at any level is significant, to provide information on demand. But this system makes these politicans appear more valuable than they are. Pearlstein also concludes that "more than the skills or the brilliance of its executives, it is information asymmetry" that provides the opportunites to gain wealth. And power. Power that can be used for the "greater good" or for personal gain. And, yes, this applies to academia, as well as to any established bureaucracy.

California's republican primary race has been nasty from the start. I decided as soon as a Meg Whitman commercial referring to Steve Poizner as "desperate, dishonest, and way more liberal than he says he is" that, whether it was true or not, I could not possible vote for someone who'd say that. Then came Meg's Goldman Sachs deals. This got me thinking and I was forced to conclude that virtually all very wealthy people have very likely participated in "ethically-vague" decisions since fortunes are typically gained at the margins of acceptable behavior. Meg, Martha, and every CEO backdating stock options, while not necessarily breaking the law, certainly take advantage of opportunities that their wealth provides but that their intelligence must, at least momentarily, consider questionable. This should call into question the qualifications of these incredibly wealthy people for public service. Why do these people feel that they are qualified to represent the other 300 million Americans who do not have these opportunities, other than the simple fact that they are only, once again, using their position to further their fortunes?

Here we go again with California propositions. Consider Prop 16, sponsored by "Yes on 16 / Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote". Now don't get too riled: no one, and no proposition, is threatening any of your rights. The sponsors just want you to think so. There's a very convincing TV actor suggesting that, whether or not local governments should "get into the electricity business", at least the people should have their say. This might make sense. But how come only 50 percent of the voters have to approve Prop 16 to make it law, but then the law says that 67 percent of the voters need to approve any local government proposal? That doesn't make sense. Especially when all California residents have seen the problems with the two-thirds voting requirement in the state legislature. It's almost impossible to get two-thirds of any group to agree on anything, and the sponsors know this.

A recent mailer from the sponsors quotes the president of the California Chamber of Commerce stating: "local voters have every right to have the final say on ... who provides them with local electric service and how much it costs." I personally don't recall voting on PG&E or SoCal Edison providing my service, not to mention my rates. We do elect our local representatives, so we certainly have some say regarding "costly and risky government schemes to get into the electricity business." I wonder if the electrical utilities knew that their own "schemes" were "costly and risky". I wonder if their share holders know? Well, PG&E must, because they are the major sponsor of Prop 16. Hmmm. And shame on the California Chamber of Commerce for also supporting this sham. Follow the money and just vote no. [Note: For more information, see George Skelton's LA Times column on April 19th]

ASEE's First Bell (2 April 2010) reports a level of mistakes in the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill math series used in the Sacramento City Unified School District that the superintendent referred to as "unusually pervasive". I guess the "usual" pervasiveness of mistakes (with pervasive meaning diffused through every part), which is a problem in itself, is in this case somehow even more, or perhaps even less, pervasive. This is about the same as saying that a structure was "completely razed". Houston, we have a problem. And it's not just with math.

Popular Science (3/17, Dillow) reports that China has offerred to fund and build high-speed rail in 17 nations extending service to southeast Asia, London, Germany, and Russia by 2020 ... in exchange for "rights to natural resources in the nations that benefit from the high-speed links." Hmmm, we may be verging on "privatization" but it sounds like China is taking the route of the U.S. railroad robber barons in the 1860s, with land grants that continue to provide the railroads, and their successors, profits to this day.

Tax revenue that feeds California's budget is a lot like the rainfall that feeds our water supply: it's either too much that we flush it away with short-sighted planning or too little that we borrow from the future to quench our thirst today.

I've noticed an increasing number of professional athletes using hyphenated last names, which reminds me of a naming conventiona that I envisioned many years ago. It is typical of a male-dominated society that the names of predominantly male ancesters pervade family geneaology. Although it may prove impossible in most cases to go back to correct this habit, it would be easy to start an hyphenated system with the current generation. Children take both parents names. Parents are also free to choose both names: if Mr. Smith marries Ms. Jones, they become Mr. and Mrs. Smith-Jones (any convention on which name comes first is fine). Their children are John Smith-Jones and Jane Smith-Jones. When Jane decides to marry (or otherwise co-mingle economics, genes, and lives), she will keep her mother's name, and add her new partner Dave Armstrong's name becoming Dave and Jane Armstrong-Jones. Jane's brother John partners with Sally Wesson to form John and Sally Smith-Wesson. Males carry their father's lineage and females carry their mothers. Everyone knows what kid belongs to whom. And we owe it all to professional athletes (although, if there is profit involved, it was my idea).

It's that time of year of make believe when we dress in costumes that aren't who we are. I'm referring to The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel that has been awarded since 1969.

"In 1895, Alfred Nobel gave the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." [http://nobelprize.org/]

Not the same thing, although no one ever points this out. But alas, perhaps I've been too harsh. This year, the Riksbank Prize goes to two economists whose work suggests that institutions outside of conventional markets and central governments could perform better. And get this: co-awardee Elinor Ostrom is not even an economist. A rather humorous story from MarketWatch.com states "Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics". Good fun! But to this untrained eye there does seem to be a deeper joke on MarketWatch as to who actually did win.

Tuition and fees at many public educational institutions are now greater for select majors such as engineering and business, a very short-sighted step that the University of California is now considering. In support of the proposal, UC argued that higher salaries for engineering faculty justify the added fees. I wonder if anyone considered the relative magnitude of gifts from engineers to UC compared to, say, literature majors? It is virtually certain that business and engineering professionals and corporations contribute disproportionately to public universities, in large measure based on higher salaries and profits. Does it make sense to charge them coming and going? Does it make any sense to discourage students from pursuing technical majors? Does it make sense to confound the educational choices of minds just beginning to open?

While one may see such efforts as necessary steps to maintain some status quo in public education, it's more likely one more step in simply surrendering to the economic mistakes of the past few decades. In that light maybe we should charge more for business majors. And economists.

In the LATimes today, James Rainey discussed the "war-correspondent" approach of the media in reporting southern California wildfires. The "inexorable 'march' of fire across the mountains", the "counterattack", the "air assault". He observed, as did I, a constant questioning by reporters as to why some planes are on the ground and not fighting the fire. This simply suggests that those reporters haven't done their homework or just don't have a clue. But it was a short article on the Hidden Springs Tavern that really caught my eye. The information officer for the fire fighting effort was reported as saying "It was completely razed". I certainly don't blame the spokesman for this redundancy spoken in the heat of battle (my bad!) but I cannot excuse the LATimes' Victoria Kim for reporting it and then invoking her own military, not to mention anthropocentric, analogy: "With no more fuel to consume, the fire had moved on, sparing only a couple of trailers." There's something mesmerizing about watching these fires; to others, there's also something memerizing about watching car chases. In either case, if you want to keep the picture on, I recommend you keep the sound off.

I've always thought that the typical capitalist model of ever growing population, markets, and economies was not sustainable, long before sustainability was a buzzword. But I never found a good analogy until reading Stan Stalnaker in the Harvard Business Review [19aug2009] who presents a cancer analogy. "Continuous growth can't be sustained in living things. It's likewise unsustainable (and undesirable) in business."

A column by David Lazarus in the LATimes business section today entitled "A tough sell for public transit" provided many choice sound bites. Media love them because you get an expert summarizing the problem and sometimes a potential solution in very few words as if to close the book on the matter.

"I rode just about every form of public transit imaginable...". It's always a short stay in a foreign city that makes people say "Why can't we have this here?". If you want that sort of getting around, make your next stay permanent. Or move to New York. The biggest difference between those who love living in big cities and using public transit and those who don't, is that those who do can't comprehend why those who don't don't. Regarding NYC, Lazarus says "Who'd even consider the hassles of driving and parking in Manhatten when you can take the subway instead?" Wrong question. Most people would not even consider living in NYC, in part because they do like to consider driving and parking. And have you waited for a rush hour train in NYC lately? Or priced an apartment?

The chances of public transit becoming a viable option in southern California in the near future is, as the sound bite provided by Marty Wachs suggests, not likely unless we "discourage the use of cars". In other words, people are making choices and these choices are not for transit. Robert Cervero wrote a wishful book about the "Transit Metropolis" but concluded that it would likely take strong car disincentives such as $4 per gallon fuel. While there were some signs of reduced VMT last summer when fuel prices went way over that, it did not have a huge (nor long lasting) effect. But we know all of this. Evidence suggests, however, that we don't exactly know why. Not that this would stop the sound bites.

Consider Lazarus' discussion of high speed rail. How often to you see high speed rail mentioned with the benefit of congestion relief? What congestion will be relieved? Fast intercity rail will not reduce metropolitan congestion. Fast metropolitan rail barely has any effect. But such comments sound good.

Brian Taylor provides several sound bites. "We now keep the cost of driving as cheap as we possibly can." Replace the word "driving" with "education", or "heath care", or public goods, in general. Or even with public transit, as in "We keep the cost of public transit as cheap as we possibly can." These are good things, right? What we do need to do is to address the negative impacts of driving choices, such as air quality, by making sure that the cost of polluting is borne by those who pollute.

But what is proposed? Charge more for parking and for road tolls just to get people out of their cars? No mention of the costs and benefits to society. Taylor also thinks that the cost of gax taxes need to go way up. I agree. But if we spend this money on cross-subsidizing transit, the funds available to maintain the highway system, which is also used by freight and transit systems, will decrease, as will the subsidy for transit itself. If transit is to be successful, it needs a direct source of revenue, not a cross-subsidy. Taylor's conclusion that, under the current model, more ridership would generate more revenue is very misleading. Since every transit rider covers only about 25% of their total cost, while revenue may increase, costs will increase faster. Where does this "cities good and suburbs bad, bus good and car bad" mentality arise?

David Boyce says we should focus on land use. We should, but for some reason, our transportation agencies historically seem to have been told that land use is not their business. What Lazarus did not mention about any foreign city where transit "works" is that the land use pattern has developed to support first walking then public transit since the city's beginning. The variety of shops, cafes, and other land uses at transit stops supports transit use. In the US, I guess we could locate transit stations inside of a Costco, but that would only work if we put high density condos on top of the Costco.

Lazarus realizes the political infeasibility of changing land use and transportation patterns, even if he never defines the associated problems (again, driving a car is not a problem; pollution and other impacts can be). So this would be a good time to mention that virtually all transportation agency boards are politicians, elected for other offices and appointed to the board, with nary a single transportation professional elected, or even appointed, to the board. I think we need less professional sound bites and more professional decision-making.

Today a meeting was moved up an hour. A colleague used the term "preponed". I always took the term "postponed" to imply indefiniteness, a deferment to a later but unspecified time. In that light, how would one realistically "prepone" a meeting?

Jerry Amante, chairman of the TCA, quickly responded to the Shriver/Reynolds opinion piece in the LATimes (see 10 March 2009 below) stating that the article "regurgitates deceits from an anti-road, pro-gridlock campaign". Talk about "regurgitating deceits". While "the TCA and other planning agencies" do, collectively, deal with all modes of transportation, the TCA by itself does not (how about "Kobe Bryant and Mike McNally are keeping the Lakers at the top of the NBA"). The TCA is a one goal entity: build and operate the full tollroad network as initially planned.

The county's master plan is just that: a plan, by design, intended to provide broad guidance and to evolve over time. Broad master plans do not reflect specific problems on specific projects, and it was certainly never envisioned to plow a state road through a state park. All issues might have been considered but the results are clearly not "balanced". Our county's transportation authority, OCTA, together with Caltrans, both of whom consider all aspects of transportation planning for the county, the region, and the state, should be the only agencies planning for the future. The TCA is simply not authorized to be "balanced".

And, ignoring for the moment the continued incorrect use of the term "gridlock" by those who should know, is there really anyone who is pro-gridlock? In particular, are there any environmentalists who think wasting energy and polluting the environment is a good thing?

In an editorial in today's LA Times, Bobby Shriver and Joel Reynolds propose a broader course for the TCA to undertake since the denial of their appeal to the feds to approve the Foothill South tollroad. While they are right on regarding the problems with the Foothill South, they missed the bus regarding a revised role for the TCA. The TCA was created as a "one trick pony" -- build a tollroad network in Orange County, their sole raison d'etre. The state legislature chartered the TCA for nothing more than expediancy. It was a bad idea then and it remains a bad idea to have such a public agency independent of conventional regional planning agencies. We have OCTA and Caltrans to handle these tasks. The legislature should revoke the TCA charter and transfer any further planning and design, if not operations and management, to OCTA and Caltrans.

If an entity is "too big to fail", then it is too big to exist.

A singularity becomes manifold. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

Problem: To much demand for the capacity available in the peak hour.
Solution: Congestion pricing. Clearly the solution, so say the economists and the private sector proponents who stand to prosper from such a policy change.

I'm talking about highway congestion, right? At least that's what you assumed.

What about public transit? We've known for decades that the public transit problem IS the "peak hour demand exceeds supply" problem. Without the peak problem, we could reduce transit fleets and costs substantially, so...

Why don't we price people off transit during these congested times? In fact, don't pricing proponents expect that those who are priced off the higher utility roads will move to the lower utility transit systems, exacerbating the already improperly priced transit problem?

I smell a Nobel Prize in Economics (except that there's not actually a Nobel Prize in Economics; rather, a Swedish Bank created a prize that emulates the original Nobel Prizes -- I'll still take the cash).

Someone has proposed that $50 million be spent to string a stainless steel net under the Golden Gate Bridge to catch jumpers. If these depressed people really were calling out for help, I would think that a less definitive action than bridge jumping would be in the cards. If they want to die, they will just find another way to do so.

All this attention on getting people to register to vote but virtually nothing on getting them to pay attention to the issues as a necessary pre-requisite. If so many registered voters don't exercise the privilege they have, maybe it's because they just don't understand the choices. So wouldn't someone who understood the real choices be registered already? If you want to sign up new voters, the day after election day would be the perfect time to start the process.

At the end of last summer (see September 2007, US Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters said: "The daily frustration of drivers on our roadways is ample evidence that our current transportation model is broken, and that bold thinking and leadership are needed. We're never going to solve congestion with higher federal gas taxes or additional earmarks; instead, we need fresh approaches like new technology, congestion pricing and greater private sector investment to get Americans moving again."

Congestion was the problem: "we need ... new technology, congestion pricing, and greater private sector investment to get Americans moving again."

Fast forward about a year, and Peters said: "By driving less and using more fuel-efficient vehicles, Americans are showing us that the highways of tomorrow cannot be supported solely by the federal gas tax. We must embrace more sustainable funding sources for highways and bridges through more sustainable and effective ways such as congestion pricing and private activity bonds." [FHWA Press Release]

Different problem but apparently the same solution. First, we have too much traffic. Now we have too little. In either case we need new technology, congestion pricing, and private sector investment.

Technology can do only two things. It can increase capacity through more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services (increasing traffic and thus increasing road revenue, ceteris paribus), and it can facilitate pricing (thus decreasing traffic with likely increases in revenue). And the private sector? For their investment, they will make a profit. In fact, new technology and congestion pricing must each involve the private sector, and private sector profits. And this is what Peters, the Bush administration, and the private sector want.

This is not about transit versus highways. This is not even about different mechanisms for funding transportation systems. This is simply another attempt to privatize transportation... at least those components where there's a profit to be made.

Waterboarding. Subject all proponents to said torture. If they stick to their story that it isn't torture, then I'll believe them. If they change their mind and say that it is torture, then I'll believe that it is, whether they truly believe it or if they were just tortured into saying so.

Too many cars? Let's price them off the road. Essentially, demand exceeds capacity and pricing can remove those trips. But how do we provide for this supressed demand? Pricing proponents would direct this demand to less congested periods and to public transit. While it may be hard to envision now, what would happen if public transit systems become congested? Should these systems be subject to congestion pricing?

Guess what? Public transit systems are already congested. The biggest problem in providing public transit is not the low level of ridership in off-peak hours; rather it's the excessive demand during the peak hours that requires a larger fleet size, larger vehicles, and more drivers, resulting in many vehicles and paid drivers that sit unused in the off-peak or large empty vehicles in service with little demand to balance the costs of operations. Shouldn't we price people off of transit so that we can avoid these problems? We can, as with the highway, hope that those priced off the system will instead still travel by the public mode but at an off-peak time. And what about the sidewalks?

I support the application of appropriate technologies to improve the performance of transportation systems. I support the deployment of public transportation, even where it is not justified based on system performance, if it addresses other regional goals and if it does not degrade the performance of other transportation system components. I support policies, programs, and plans to encourage land development that address population needs and encourage land, activity, and transportation options that minimize impact on the natural environment. I do not support the use of euphemistic, politically correct but typically inconsistently applied weasel words such as "smart" (as in technologies or growth), "success story" or "boondoggle", "seamless" or "balanced", any term followed by "-oriented" (pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented, active lifestyle-oriented), or "green". And gridlock does not mean what you think it does.

There are only two ways to address congestion: increase supply or decrease demand.

Scenarios to increase supply include new roads or transit systems as well as more effective use of existing facilities and services, such as better timing of traffic signals or transit transfers. The cost varies significantly over the options, but in general the entire traveling public has access to most if not all of the options.

Scenarios to decrease demand include a range of policy options to control travel by either restricting facility access to defined users (e.g., carpools in carpool lanes) or by simply directly charging for it (e.g., road tolls or transit fares). The cost varies depending on the specific strategy (and typically will involve supply-side changes) but, in general, the traveling public will not have equal access to system options due to the imposed pricing and significant variation in ability to pay.

A downside of capacity increases in areas marked by increasing congestion is that performance improvements are often soon lost to new demand that now can be accommodated by the new capacity. But the system is accommodating more demand and this is a good thing, all other things constant. There is no real difference from adding, say, school capacity in response to school enrollment pressure and finding that the new capacity is consumed by new demand. Fresh air, clean water, public safety, K-12 schools, and transportation are public goods, the demand for which increases with growth, growth that is typically a sign of strong economic activity.

The downside of pricing options is equity. We all have 24 hours in a day but we all do not have the income or employer benefits to provide full access to variable rate transportation systems. Yes, once in a blue moon a poor man will choose to pay more than they can afford to save time and a rich man will choose to save a few dollars and sit in traffic, but no responsible person would actually pose this argument as if this made things acceptable. Transportation is not a simple economic good, and a typical traveler is often not your typical economic man.

Pricing some facilities and services shifts demand to unpriced options. Congestion is managed on the priced facility at the expense of the unpriced facility. To prevent these shifts, all facilities must be priced. In this manner, pricing will decrease overall demand. One could assume that less important travel will disappear first. One could also assume that those with a lower ability to pay would suffer more, to the benefit of those who can pay and can now drive less impeded on their merry way. So will congestion be reduced? If all travel is appropriately priced, then probably so. If only selected facilities are priced, then probably not, with congestion getting worse on free facilities.

US Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters is quoted in a recent Institute of Transportation Engineers e-news: "The daily frustration of drivers on our roadways is ample evidence that our current transportation model is broken, and that bold thinking and leadership are needed. We're never going to solve congestion with higher federal gas taxes or additional earmarks; instead, we need fresh approaches like new technology, congestion pricing and greater private sector investment to get Americans moving again." This is the Bush administration speaking for corporate America and stating that an over-burdened system is "broken" and thus in need of a new operational paradigm. Ignoring the obvious applicability to the federal government, that conclusion could apply to virtually any component of public infrastructure and service. One must properly define the problem before one can evaluate potential solutions.

I'm in favor of new thinking, open to new technologies, and supportive of privatization, where the solutions fit the problems. However, each of these "fresh" approaches, including Intelligent Transportation Systems, congestion pricing, and privatization, is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Is congestion even the problem? Isn't the overarching goal to provide a system to move people and goods to benefit the economy and quality of life?

The fundamental problem is that these "fresh" approaches are not unlike the old build for capacity approaches. It all comes down to either increasing capacity or reducing demand. Any stragegy that makes more efficient use of current capacity is effectively increasing capacity. This will initially improve system performance but, in an area defined by a growing economy and population, this will tend to induce demand.

The potential contribution to a sustainable transportation system is constrained. Demand has to be controlled, not simply priced. The factors contributing to demand, land development and a population growing in size and affluence, must be controlled. Pricing people out of traveling will reduce demand and allow for an acceptable level of congestion to be established, but with significant equity issues. If you do not provide more capacity, or make better use of existing capacity throught fundamental changes in location and travel behavior, then the wish to "get Americans moving again" can not be gained.

This from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (assuming that's still their name):

"The name of the Goods Movement Council has been changed to the Freight Mobility Council by the ITE Board of Direction. The Board has recognized the increasing importance of freight transportation and the role that transportation engineers and planners can play in increasing efficiency..."

So, in recognition of "the increasing role that engineers and planners can play", the ITE Board of Direction renames that council. Now that's definitive action, and none too soon! And it's called the ITE Board of Direction? Not Directors? (Egads, it seems ASCE also has a Board of Direction!) How about replacing "transportation engineers and planners" with Mobility Enhancement Professionals? Meps... meps!

Here's an idea. If you want to go to a baseball game, just go. Buy a ticket, take a seat, and watch the game. Have a hot dog and a beer, cheer on the home team, and maybe engage in some good-natured booing. And when the game is over, just get up and go. This is not about self-affirmation or group identification. Keep your social and religious revivals in the churches, temples, and mosques. And leave baseball alone in the parks.

I wish this would go for the athletes, too. Play your game; do your best. And if you win, enjoy it (but respect the other team). But please leave the Big Guy out of it -- he wasn't rooting for you nor was he rooting against the other team. [see 10 June 2006].

The California proposition process is a good idea gone bad. Virtually all of these public initiatives are sold as single issue initiatives but in reality they're very badly written but complex legal documents subject to judicial interpretation. In other words, it's impossible to tell what you're getting.

Case 1. The supposed single issue behind Prop 90 is that property transfers between private parties should occur only in the private sector marketplace. If that was all that it said, then most people would back it. Afterall, who wants their house taken by eminent domain then sold to Walmart for the supposed "public good"? Public takings should be limited to direct public facilities. Unfortunately, Prop 90 is being forwarded by developers and property rights supporters, and backed by many public office seekers, who typically see any taking for the public good as a bad thing. It is unclear how the general public power of emminent domain will be affected, since the Prop 90 language seems to suggest that any constraints on private benefit of property is effectively a taking. While I have personal arguments with strict supporters of property rights (and the historically recent systems that "assign" such rights), my argument here is simply that such complex propositions should never be approved. KISS.

Case 2, 3, ... Let's nail the oil companies. Why not compare the relative price of gas with coffee and see whether it's not Starbucks that we should be nailing? I'd like to agree with Gore and Clinton: we really should start doing something about the energy future. But when proponents of Prop 87 tell us that this will reduce oil prices, how can we possibly agree? Even if it was sold solely on promoting alternative energy, one would think that the private market place would address this. hey, maybe that's why gas prices are so high. And let's nail smokers while we're at it. If we really cared about them, we'd dedicate all of Prop 86 revenues directly toward stopping smoking. That is not what Prop 86 does. Read the legislative analyst summaries in the ballot material all registered voters receive.

Propositions more often than not leverage real public fears to misrepresent complex positions that the public in general would not support at face value. This has been the case for prior propositions that claim to advance environmental protection, reduce smoking, help uninsured children, and spank oil companies. Maybe Nancy Reagan was right: "Just Say No".

Orange County's Measure M. There are three possible perspectives. The first is that all taxes are bad. While I tend to agree that most taxes are bad, a tax that is very well defined as far as an expenditure plan seems to be one that can be analyzed via the other two perspectives: either what is being sold is worth the price of admission or it is not. The first Measure M has been very successful on virtually any scale. The Measure M renewal promises more of the same projects, policies, and perspectives. Read the ballot summary. Is what is being proposed worth continuing the half cent sales tax that you already are paying? If so, vote yes; if not vote, no. Actually, there is a fourth perspective, one that says we really need a renewed Measure M, but not the one being offered. The original Measure M was the third attempt to pass this sales tax for transportation. Perhaps a defeat in November would produce a better version next time around. Things change.

For all its greatness, the US Constitution makes it virtually impossible to change it.

Happy Birthday.

Geography 1. East vs. West -- East coast people walk faster and drive slower.
Geography 2. San Francisco vs. LA -- they hate us, and we ignore them.

Why was it so easy to impose term limits, especially since politicians now all seem to want to relax them? Why couldn't we address the real problems of special interests, campaign contributions, and other politician self-help programs. Did we just create a leash law?

What college course really moved you? The LA Times asked the question of several local names, and the results were not very surprising. For those involved in some form of public service, it was a non-technical courses that fed the fire. One might guess that scientists and engineers would be motivated by a technical-oriented course. But why? A career-forming experience could be a single course, but is this likely? What really moves you in college? In life? I couldn't think of a single college course, or other event, that set a path for me. Isn't it more the many choices we make? Or don't make?

Leash Laws. If you put a leash on what disturbs you, is the real concern really being addressed. If not, what happens when the leash comes off?

There are many inexpensive automobiles available that feature high fuel mileage, so why the excitement with hybrids? They're expensive relative to non-hybrid equivalents, have somewhat unknown maintenance and re-sale values, and don't really save much gas. What cars do people give up to purchase a hybrid? Is the HOV lane enticement reducing fuel consumption and improving air quality? Do we know any of this? Or is this a roundabout way to move toward HOT lanes?

What should be outlawed are the shameless politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while pretending to be looking out for anything other than themselves. The flag is symbolic of our freedom -- let's protect that and not just the symbol. The last thing I want to do is burn our flag, but the first thing I'll have to do if they change the constitution is to be civil disobedient and do so.

Last week, some one in Arizona proposed giving a lottery ticket to everyone who votes. Talk about getting it wrong -- if anything, we should prohibit people who buy lottery tickets from voting at all. Voting may be a right, but educating one's self on the issues and the candidates is a duty that needs to be completed before exercising the right. It's not a crap shoot, but there is a big payoff when you play your best game: it's called democracy. Then again, maybe we should replace elections with lotteries. We couldn't do much worse...

Take down the O'Shaughnessy Dam and restore Hetch Hetchy Valley? While it's hard to believe that it was built there in the first place, this certainly isn't something that needs to be placed on the front burner. Why not open the reservoir to a range of recreational activity, continue to benefit from the dam, and think about the many ways the $1 billion to $10 billion could be used to save unprotected natural areas. When we run out of other more urgent environmental needs, and if we still have the big bucks left, then consider removing the dam.

"Our strength is our diversity". A colleague said this referring to research endeavors. I begged to differ: our strength is our strength. It's not the quantity or range of ideas that is important but how well you express the ideas that you have. In public affairs, however, our true strength is indeed our diversity, or at least the ability to take and express a range of opinions. It is not "either you're with us or you're with (them)". As soon as we acquiesce to a bully pulpit, we have lost our strength.

Re-organized two years ago, the Board of Directors for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) now comprises 17 members. The five county supervisors serve as well as ten city representatives, two from each supervisory district. Each pair are appointed by the OC League of Cities (one weighted by city population and one not). The other two are public members that are appointed by the first 15. A good starting place for reform would be direct election of the two public members, based on qualifications in the field of transportation. Such an obvious choice, right?

Who's the last person elected to your local water district? How about the last one for the Board of Equalization? How about the people you elected to your community college district? Or even your local school board? Well, you certainly can remember who the last person was that got your vote for the local transportation board? No? Well, I can't help you with the first four but I can with the last. No one. You'd find it quite difficult to find anyone elected to any transportation position at the federal, state, regional, county, or local levels. While engineers, planners, accountants, lawyers, educators, and entrepreneurs can bring their skills to many elective offices, it's not the case in transportation. And not for any shortage of skilled candidates. With about 12 percent of the GNP associated with transportation there is a corresponding share of total employment in transportation fields. In additional to thousands employed by government agencies at all levels, more are employed by private industry, transportation providers, shippers, consulting firms, and educational and research institutions. For domestic households, transportation is typically the largest expenditure after housing.

Who does serve on transportation boards? In general, people that were elected to other positions and were then appointed to the transportation board. Many boards have public members, but these positions are appointed by other board members. If you're not elected to do a job, then you are probably not accountable for that job. When's the last time you heard of a politician being voted out of office for bad transportation policy? Or being punished for rampant pork barrel politics that dominate transportation appropriations?

Any potential solutions? Give me to next week to think about it...

School's out. For some kids, maybe it should be permanent vacation. Let's face it, our schools are getting crowded, and both capital and operating funds are limited. We can't keep building our way out of school congestion. Demand for schools must be managed. The economically efficient way to do this is congestion pricing. "Value pricing" will give families a choice: pay more to attend in the peak hours (during the day), or pay less to go off-peak (at night). Sounds great, right? Maybe we should apply this approach to other areas of congestion...

We've always been encouraged to maintain our bodies through good nutrition and exercise, and to maintain our minds through the mental equivalents. The personal benefit was basically that you would have a healthier, happier, and longer life. In our world, we increasingly see that "maintain" must become "improve". And it seems that we can't do this by ourselves. From self-help gurus (oxymoronic?), to personal trainers, to just about anyone with a way to expand your guilt and deflate your wallet, an entire industry has emerged based on self-improvement. This trend has been inflicted on our children as the days of pick-up neighborhood baseball games has become personal coaches for second grade kids to sizable investments in hi-tech training and travel teams. When the bar for success has been raised so high, and the rewards for success even higher, it should not be a surprise that any means of improvement will be utilized. But it's no longer a question of personal improvement; rather, it's performance improvement.

Why are we so concerned about illegal drug usage in professional and amateur sports? We are all medicated beyond what any physician could have imagined years ago. We accept plastic surgery in beauty pageants and the media. We expect everything to be bigger and better. Our celebrity athletes have become CEOs of their self-named athletic enterprises with staffs replete with personal trainers, nutritionists, spiritual guides, media and financial advisors, and, apparently, pharmaceutical advisors. Only this last one seems to be a problem.

There are two ways to address this. The easy way is to grin and bear it. If it's such a bad thing, then the piper will be paid one day. The hard way? Cancel your subscriptions to SI and People. Stop attending professional sports. Boycott the Olympics. Don't buy sports merchandise. Don't put your kids on a one-way street. But whatever you do, please don't just complain about Barry Bonds -- afterall, you created him.

Would everyone please stop thanking Jesus for your success. I can't think of any world, physical or spiritual, where any higher being would care about your personal success at the expense of others. If you really want to thank him, then donate your winnings and your time to helping those less fortunate. No need to tell anyone about it. He'll know.

Not long ago, UCI faculty transcribed final grades from digital media (often a spreadsheet) to 3-part paper forms that were hand-carried to the registrar who then promptly re-entered the data to generate digital student transcripts. But we have recently evolved to a 100 percent digital system. Almost.

Faculty still assemble final grades from a variety of student work, much if not most that is still graded on percentage terms. In a typical engineering class, students complete homeworks, lab reports, papers, quizzes, and exams, the weighted sum which is used to establish a digital grade for the course as a whole. And then we convert that score to a letter grade (several years ago we added + and - refinements).

In my humble opinion, the letter grade is bad enough. But we now electronically send the digital representation of that letter grade to the registrar who assembles all of the letter grades for a given student and promptly converts them back to a numerical score, the student's Grade Point Average (GPA). So a student is "letter graded" based on how they fall on a distribution curve (did you ever "just miss" an A?). But the most important measure of student achievement is the GPA, reported more often than not to two "significant" digits (e.g., 3.42). Why do we do this? Why do we have these letter grades at all?