##################################################################
TRANSPORTATION THINK TANK NOTES FROM MEETING #19: OCTOBER 20, 1999
##################################################################
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 1999 <>
<> Starting at 5 pm, at CAFE BRASIL at <>
<> 1410 MISSION ST in SANTA CRUZ <>
<> <>
<> Possible agenda item: <>
<> The $500K Transportation Study in process for Santa Cruz <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
NOTES FROM OCTOBER 20:
We met at the Aptos Fire House, with Katherine Beiers, Bill Comfort,
Emily Reilly, Peter Scott, Janet and Michael Singer, Richard Stover and
Dave Walworth present.
E-BIKE:
As promised, Richard showed up with the Lee Iacocca E-Bike that he had
kindly been lent by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. Of
course we had lots of questions about it. (Appended to these notes is a
copy of Richard's written comments regarding it.)
Question: how much does it weigh?
A: 83 pounds, 22 of which is the battery.
Michael: could it be used to get to the UCSC campus?
A: yes! you have to do a little pedaling, however. it does not have a
high enough gear for level stretches. one can pedal faster than the
motor will drive it.
Katherine: is is scary to ride?
A: no, not at all.
Michael: what about rules of the road? How well do you interact with
others?
A: it really is a bike, not a motorcycle. the horn is too loud to warn
pedestrians at close range
Peter: can we try it out, or is there a problem with insurance?
A: it's true that insurance considerations make me unwilling to offer it
for trial runs. in fact at first my insurance company (state farm) did
not know how to deal with it, but eventually decided it was equivalent
to a mo-ped, a vehicle for which they could provide insurance.
Bill: there are such things as electric motorcycles
Katherine: we don't want them on trails
Richard: the brakes are good, comfortable, front is disk brake, rear is
a caliper brake.
Peter: how long did it take you get here?
A: about an hour from my office in nat sci 2 on the ucsc campus to here.
(see appended notes for more info. [NOTE: i was given a couple of
brochures from a person who had visited JAPAN, describing electric
bicycles available from HONDA. they looked very appealing. i don't
know if HONDA electric bikes are available yet in the USA.])
TRANSIT GREENWAYS:
Katherine brought copies of a flyer advertising a presentation by Tom
Gustafson starting at 11 am on Wednesday November 3 at the La Playa
Hotel in Carmel, entitled "Transit Greenways". The presentation is
being organized by "Making Cities Livable Conferences", an organization
based in Carmel, but with a number of European connections. The flyer
states:
"Transit Greenways", an important new and fundable concept for light
rail, is especially suitable for small cities and towns, and can be
funded by Federal and State Transportation trust funds. Transit
Greenways are designed for the safe, comfortable, convenient, timely
and efficient movement of pedestrians, bicycle and greenway transit
vehicles. They increase personal mobility within urban, suburban
and environmentally sensitive communities.
Tom Gustafson is a lawyer and from 1976 to 1990 was Speaker of the
Florida House of Representatives. During his tenure, significant
revisions of the Transportation Codes, the health care statutes, and
the criminal justice laws were undertaken to reshape Florida's public
policy. He has hellped a number of cities and towns to obtain funding
for planning and implementing transit greenways. He is a great
speaker and dynamic person.
If you want to attend his talk and the accompanying lunch it costs $65.
Call 831.626.9080 if you are interested. [note: celia and i are
planning to attend.]
BIKE ROUTE on the RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY:
Michael mentioned a couple of relevant websites, both of which are part
of the "rails-to-trails conservancy" site. these deal with
"rails-with-trails":
http://www.railtrails.org/fs-rwt.htm (this is a fact sheet)
and
http://www.railtrails.org/sec-ch6.html (the last paragraph of this)
main points: (1) there are lots of examples in the US of trails having
been built adjacent to operating rail lines---currently 47, with 70 more
in the works. (2) trails with rails are safe. distances between the
center-line of the rail vary between 8 feet and 200 feet, usually with a
fence separating them, or sometimes vegetation. There is a web site
with an almost unmanageable URL that has the results of a 1997 study of
37 rails-with-trails projects (all operating) in the US:
http://www.test-site.com/TrailsAndGreenways/TAG_active_pages/Technical
Assistance/OnlineReferences/RailsWithTrails/b-right.asp
("TechnicalAssistance" is all one word)
[well this last one seems the most interesting to me]
Peter described a path-along-the-rail he just saw in Switzerland, along
the shore of the Zurichsee. A fantastic path, and well-used.
Regarding our own situation:
Bill mentioned that it would be a bad idea to divert bicyclists to
adjacent roads when the RR crosses a trestle, for two reasons: (1)
adjacent roads are often too hazardous, and (2) the main asset of a bike
trail next to the RR is that it is level. to have to descend and climb
again would discurage use of the route by bicyclists. it is better to
spend whatever it takes to hang a cantelevered path on the trestle.
Janet mentioned a dollar figure of $9.4 million for putting in bike path
without trestle-bridges, about $18 million with trestle bridges.
Katherine mentioned that Sam Farr had done a 1-hour TV show about a year
ago with the head of Rails-to-trails. Bill mentioned that maybe our RTC
office has a copy of the video.
Later in our meeting we decided that facilitating the
bike-path-along-the-rail-right-of-way project is something that would be
appropriate for the TTT. Since Congressman Sam Farr has previously
demonstrated interest in both the idea of rail-around-the-bay and
bike-path-around-the-bay, it would seem likely that he would be
interested in this bike route/path project. He could possibly be of
assistance also since he represents both Santa Cruz anc Monterey
Counties. For example, we don't know how the bike path in Monterey
County was put together or funded, and it would make sense if a path in
Santa Cruz County could connect with it. It was decided that I (Peter)
would call Sam's office to see if he would be interested in meeting with
us. [NOTE: I did call 10/21. Spoke with Alison, who said she would
talk with Sam and call me back. I have yet to hear from her.]
The current discussion relating to the bike-path-along-the-rail project
concerns who will direct the project---what the lead agency will be. It
could be the County, or the SCMTD, or the SCCRTC, or a JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITY (JPA). There are issues of control, but the RTC seems to be
leaning toward the JPA. How would it be formed? Who would be
represented on it? (we don't know). Bill suggested that County Public
Works be considered, but Katherine felt that the body needs its own
entity. County Parks would be another body interested.
Katherine mentioned her experience relating to a bike path near Portland
Oregon that traversed several city and county jurisdictions, where each
part had its own signage, but also had a unifying logo. Richard told
about his recent biking along a path around the Bodensee, where there
was also a uniform logo plus individual signs characteristic of the
three countries traversed by the path (Germany, Austria, Switzerland).
There was some discussion relating to the prop 116 $11 million, and
whether any of it could be construed to apply to this project, but the
discussion was inconclusive. Emily said she would speak with Linda
Wilshusen.
METROBASE:
The SCMTD has apparently hired an architect. Emily noted that Jennifer
Bragar had made a presentation to the Mission Business Association, who
liked the idea of a public forum. We would be pleased to help with
setting up a forum. A metrobase is a pre-requisite for an improved bus
system.
ORIGIN-DESTINATION (TRAVEL FORECAST) METHODOLOGY:
Janet handed around pages 10-11 from the "Travel Forecast Results
Report" from the MTIS study. It notes that travel forecasts
incorporated the results of four travel surveys, a 1994 Santa Cruz
On-Board Transit Rider Survey, a 1994 Central Coast License Plate
Survey, the Caltrans Statewide Home Interview Travel Survey, and a UCSC
Trip Diary Survey. Details relating to these travel surveys are not
contained in the report distributed. There exists a "Task 5 Travel
Demand Model Development Methodology Report", but we did not have a copy
of it at the meeting. Bill thought that it might not add much
additional information. It remains unclear (a) whether the travel
forecasting done for the MTIS study was adequate or helpful or reliable,
and (b) whether other travel forecasting methodology exists that might
be better or more helpful than that used in the MTIS study.
Peter noted that UCSC has just completed a study showing where people
live who come to the campus, and as a result has determined that a new
bus route along Delaware and Western Drives might work to serve a large
population of individuals. Emily said she would speak with Larry
Pageler about this.
Michael noted the existence of a study of trip-chaining behavior and the
availability of the automobile, which stimulate people (especially women
with children) to design multi-task trips (trip-chaining).
That was it for the afternoon...
-- Peter Scott, note-taker.
[to be REMOVED from this list, write to me (drip@cats.ucsc.edu) and i
will take you off.]
=======================================================================
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:04:31 PDT
From: Richard Stover <richard@ucolick.org>
To: drip@cats.ucsc.edu
Subject: ebike
Peter,
Here are some notes on the ebike.
Richard
EBIKE NOTES Richard Stover Oct. 20, 1999
Preliminary Draft
The ebike was borrowed from SCMTD Oct 13.
I rode to campus four times during the following week, using three
different routes up from Escalona to the base of the UCSC campus and
two routes on campus up to "Science Hill." As a long-time biker it has
taken me a while to learn to ride the ebike efficiently. I started out
expecting too much from the ebike - but it is not a motorcycle or
scooter. It is a motor assisted bicycle. Rider and motor must work
together and it takes practice and experience to learn how to do this.
Positives:
1. It is certainly easier and faster to get to campus using the ebike
than using my current bike. (My current bike is old and heavy and
it would be instructive to compare to a modern, light-weight bike.)
2. The ebike (actually the battery) has plenty of energy to get up
to the top of the UCSC campus core.
3. The ebike has a nice big headlight and a large taillight that comes
on when the brakes are applied.
4. The ebike has a fairly loud horn that someone in a car might actually
hear.
5. The ebike monitors motor performance and "beeps" if it needs pedal
assistance going up hill (which it often does).
6. I found the "cruise control" useful.
7. An indicator gives a rough indication of battery charge. When the
indicator reads "Empty" you should head for the nearest 110V outlet.
8. The brakes seem to be adequate (at least as good my current
bike). The model I had uses a front wheel disk brake and a rear
wheel cantilever brake.
9. Acceleration is smooth and easily controlled. Acceleration can be
faster than what I can achieve with my current bike, which makes getting
across busy streets quicker and easier (and maybe safer).
Negatives:
1. Seven gear speeds are not enough. I found myself wanting a higher
gear ratio on level roads where one could pedal the ebike faster than
the motor can drive it. As long as the battery isn't exhausted the
lowest gear ratio is fine, but if the battery is exhausted then some
lower gears are also needed to climb even moderate hills because the
ebike is heavy.
2. The ebike is heavy. The ebike weights 83 pounds. (This was measured
twice to verify the weight.) Of this, the battery/charger unit weights
22 pounds. Collision with a pedestrian could be serious.
3. The battery/charger/electronics housing is not water proof, even
though a sticker on the battery warns against getting the battery or
charger wet. The battery housing has air vents that would allow water
to get directly on the battery charger. The handlebar electronics may
not be weatherproof either.
4. The battery compartment cannot be easily locked. Therefore, even if
the bike is secured, leaving the bike outside is risky.
Observations:
A full battery charge takes about 0.36 KWH of electrical energy which
at current electricity rates is about 4 cents. The battery cost is
reported to be about $75 and it is supposed to be good for about 400
recharges or about 19 cents per recharge.
The ride from King Street up to the top of the campus core requires about
0.17 KWH (or about 1/2 of the battery capacity). It would be interesting to
compare the pollution resulting from using the ebike compared to
an efficient gas-powered moped.
The battery is monitored by a sensor. Motor performance seemed to be
good up to the moment the battery sensor decided that the battery was
too low to go further. At that point the motor is disable. Even after the
motor was disabled the headlight and taillight worked well.
I haven't checked this accurately but the recharge time seems to be
around four hours for a fully exhausted battery.
The horn is so loud that it shouldn't be used to warn pedestrians. The
ebike needs a bell.
The ebike cannot climb the steep hills coming up to campus without
pedal assistance. Climbing these hills slowly is easier on the
rider and seems to be easier on the battery.
No mechanical problems developed during the testing, although
several items were out of adjustment (including a LOOSE FRONT WHEEL)
when I got the bike from Metro.
I haven't been able to measure the ebike's range on flat roads. I've used
it only for commuting to campus. Note: On a ride from the top of
Science Hill on campus out to the Aptos fire station, with pedaling
on the flat stretches of the road, the battery monitor was still reading
"Full" and the recharge took only about 1 hour (1/4 of battery capacity.)
The high-pitched whine of the motor may be a little disconcerting for a biker
accustomed to near-silent riding. It still bothers me. But it is much
quieter than a gas-power cycle.
Insurance turned out to be an issue for the ebike. SCMTD wouldn't loan
the bike to me without liability insurance. When I first contacted my
insurance agent he said that since it wasn't registered with the DMV it
can't be covered by motorcycle insurance and since it is motorized it
is explicitly excluded by my home-owner's insurance. This same
exclusion probably exists in many home-owner policies in California.
After a week of deliberations at the corporate offices they decided the
market for ebikes in Santa Cruz could be significant and that the ebike
could be covered under a moped policy. Not all insurance companies
offer moped policies.
Preliminary conclusions:
It has taken me about a week to get used to working with the motor
of the ebike. Each time I rode the ebike to campus it seemed to get
easier. So regular bikers probably shouldn't judge the ebike after just
one or two rides.
The lack of weatherproofing may make this ebike unsuitable for winter
commuting in this area. I don't know how serious this will prove to be.
This ebike is not as versatile as a normal bike and so I am inclined
to spend $1,000 on a good street bike rather than an ebike. But for
the person looking for a way to commute without using a car this may be
a very nice choice. For commuting 10 miles or less around the Santa
Cruz area this ebike would probably work fine.
There are likely to be other choices on the market soon. The Lee
Iacocca ebike and others are likely to get better as new and improved
models are brought to market.