Welcome to the next version of edwardjensen.net: Technology for a Digital Generation!
Things change. And like everything that’s good on the Internet, this blog has changed. No longer is it a collection point for random ramblings of mine (although that will still happen, I promise!): there’s a purpose to this blog.
Of the bigger things that you’ll notice is the title of this blog. No longer is the title “Life as Edward Jensen” as that’s been moved into the subtitle. I am pleased to introduce you all to Technology for a Digital Generation: Technology Research, Digital Citizenship, and Bicycling.
This blog really will start to focus on four things. Of course, there will be news, information, and commentary on all that is downtown Phoenix. That won’t change. And of course there will be stories about my adventures in bicycle commuting in the urban desert. That, too, won’t change. But there are two more things that I will focus on: technology research and digital citizenship.
The emphasis and integration of the latter two thematic areas — technology research and digital citizenship — is really me integrating my technology consulting firm, Downtown Technology Company, to a broader audience. Downtown Technology is a technology consulting firm but it’s more than that. Through Downtown Technology, I look at technology as a force for capacity building. How can startups, nonprofits, education, and others leverage technology more effectively to build their capacity and do what they do better?
The research there is definitely a rush. I hope you will join me.
…in which we read into a building plaque at ASU Downtown more than we probably should.
One of the things that I do is take pictures of building plaques. They’re the little things that are inside city/state/federal buildings that gives a snapshot of the relevant legislative bodies and executive officers at the time of the building’s construction.
Much has been made about the recent decision by the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus to close off the buildings to the public. There’s a lot of confusion over ASU’s justification to do that considering that the buildings aren’t ASU buildings but are, in fact, City of Phoenix buildings. It will be interesting to see how that conversation plays out and I am very curious what ASU has to say about this.
But back to building plaques: One of the more subtle ironies in this whole discussion is this plaque that’s inside the Cronkite School building. It has the usual cast of characters on it: the Mayor, the City Council, other city leaders, and the requisite names from the Arizona Department of Education and the Arizona Board of Regents. There are, however, two other inscriptions that accentuate the irony just that much more:
“Dedicated to the people of the City of Phoenix whose vision, trust and commitment made this campus possible.”
DOCTRINA URBI SERVIAT Let Knowledge Serve the City
I couldn’t help but notice this as we all considered the repercussions and impact of a newly closed campus at ASU Downtown.
…in which the Grady Gammage Jr/Andrew Ross debate for Phoenix Urban Design Week is reviewed.
Great conversation tonight at day 3 of Phoenix Urban Design Week.
I, and many, expected the conversation between Andrew Ross and Grady Gammage Jr. to be more spirited than it was but was pleased with the content of the conversation. I appreciate that Andrew Ross has really tackled the social justice/social equity piece and made that as much of an issue of sustainability than just “going green” — something with which I agree wholeheartedly. It was interesting how most of the evening was spent talking about water, with nary a mention of transportation and air quality.
Surprisingly, the best line of the night came from Grady Gammage Jr., who said, “You can’t have a city if you have a parking spot for everything.” I absolutely agree. Parking lots are the enemy of density.
“For the first time in two generations, there has been a significant shift in how many miles Americans are driving each year,” said Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona PIRG Education Fund. “America needs to understand these trends when deciding how to focus our future transportation investments, especially when transportation dollars are so scarce.”
Transportation and the New Generation reveals that for the first time since World War II, Americans are driving less. The report showed that by 2011, the average American was driving 6 percent fewer miles per year than in 2004.
This trend away from driving is even more pronounced among young people. The average young person (age 16-34) drove 20 percent fewer miles in 2009 than the average young person in 2001. The report also notes that a growing number of young Americans do not have driver’s licenses; from 2000 to 2010, the share of 14 to 34-year-olds without a license increased from 21 percent to 26 percent.
“With one of our largest ridership groups being between the ages of 18 – 24, we have to provide them frequent and comprehensive mobility choices that support their lifestyle,” said Valley Metro CEO Steve Banta. “The total transit network, which is many modes working in concert, will help keep our young people in the region and support our local economy.”
“I would rather have good public transportation options than the hassle and expense of driving a car,” said Nicole Barrett, a student at Arizona State University’s downtown Phoenix campus. “It’s time for our leaders to stop debating how much to spend expanding our grandparents’ transportation network and start figuring out how to build the infrastructure that my generation will need for the future.”
“The shift away from six decades of increasing vehicle travel to a new reality of slow-growing or even declining vehicle travel has potentially seismic implications for transportation policy,” says Benjamin Davis, analyst with Frontier Group. “It calls into question the very wisdom of our current transportation investment priorities.”
“America’s transportation preferences appear to be changing. Our elected officials need to make transportation decisions based on the real needs of Americans in the 21st century,” concluded Unrein.
…in which I look at transportation as a system — not as bits and pieces — and ask others to join me.
Something’s been on my mind lately. (Well, when isn’t that the case?)
A lot of people have mentioned the rise of the so-called “bicycle culture” here in Phoenix. I’m not sure what that means, though: what is bicycle culture? If it’s not a hipster movement, the bicycle culture advocates for bicycle transportation as the mode of transportation in urban environments.
Don’t get me wrong: I love bicycling—even in the desert. I have a bicycle that I use to get around central Phoenix that I’ve christened as Kierkegaard, after the Danish existentialist philosopher. The picture here is of my bicycle at one of the light rail stations here in town. It is my equivalent of a car since I don’t have a car. I agree that there needs to be better bicycle infrastructure in this city and around the world.
Actually, I should come out here and share this with the world: I don’t have a driver’s license. In fact, I’ve never had one. I am sure that I’m going to have to get one at some point; for now, it’s a point of personal pride that I’ve gotten this far without needing one.
As I see it, bicycling is part of a greater system: sustainable transportation. I think that this is where the bicycle culture people are missing a key piece to their advocacy. The other two components of that sustainable transportation system are public transportation and walking. It’s not about promoting one modality over the other or saying that one is superior to the other. It’s about recognizing that sustainable transportation is a system and that all modalities are connected to each other.
I have taken Kierkegaard (the bicycle) on the trains here many times when my final destination is just outside of the reach of my pedaling power. Bike to train to bike to destination: it’s about the journey and the destination.
…in which I ask: Can we stop arguing over a downtown Phoenix dog park and move on to other issues?
Earlier today, the Hance Park Steering Committee held its final meeting. The Hance Park Steering Committee finished putting together its document of principles that will (hopefully!) head out as an RFQ process as the first step to make Hance Park a cultural and recreational gem for Phoenicians and for the world. As someone said, “Hance Park is our Central Park. Let’s not mess this up!”
At the previous Hance Park Steering Committee meeting, the Steering Committee recommended placement of a temporary dog park at the northwest island of Hance Park, located across from Kenilworth School, between 3rd and 5th Avenues and Culver Street. This was the decision that has had support from community members, institutional processes, and the right decision makers.
Enter today. A new fight was waged against democratic processes. A neighbor adjacent to the proposed Hance Park dog park site gave a three-minute speech about why a dog park should not go at this temporary site. A lot of people asked him this question: Why weren’t your issues brought to the table when the Ad Hoc Dog Park Committee was going through its recommendation process? Of course, the gentleman had no answer. His flyers (which were printed on gloss paper with somewhat professional graphic design) linked to an online petition which, at the moment of this writing, has only two signatures.
I’m not a fan of dog parks but I am supportive of the process that has been taken here by the Hance Park Steering Committee. I am also supportive of the Hance Park Steering Committee’s desire to launch an RFQ process as a means to develop Hance Park’s new Master Plan. But as for dog parks: this location is sensible and temporary. It is a sensible site because it executes the democratic processes and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Dog Park Committee and is cognizant of community input. It is a temporary site because the formal design team will work with the neighbors and site a dog park at the location that works the best. If it’s the same site, nobody knows.
So, I have a question to my fellow downtown Phoenicians: Can we put this saga to rest? There are so many larger pressing issues that face downtown Phoenix that we should work together to find solutions.
Dog parks are for the dogs. Let’s work on human-scaled issues together. That’s my approach: who is with me?
…in which I draw a parallel between central Phoenix’s new audible crosswalk signals and a classic scene from a 1979 movie.
Every time I’m at one of the crosswalks in central Phoenix, the sound that the crosswalk signals make (either a machine gun or a jackhammer, hopefully the latter!) reminds me of this scene from the 1979 movie The In-Laws (guidance: language):
…in which I opine on a downtown Phoenix dog park and express dismay over the tenor of the dialogue.
I’m finished opining on the downtown Phoenix dog park.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I enjoy hearing the different thoughts that come out in the dialogue and I’m amazed by the diversity of ideas produced. But I have become distraught at the tenor of the conversation. It appears like there are groups of people who are so entrenched in their viewpoints that they fail to consider other opinions.
I’m not saying that one side is right and the other is wrong. I am saying that it is only fair to have a reasoned and rational discussion among all sides about the dog park issue. Personally, I believe that there are more important things to downtown Phoenix’s renaissance than siting a dog park. We need to consider our downtown’s macro issues, being mindful that these are the things that make a downtown truly great: arts and culture, affordable housing, community building, good design, sustainable transportation, social equity, historic preservation, a diverse economy, strong neighborhoods, vibrant public spaces, and solid planning.
While I’m sure that organizations with which I’m affiliated (like Downtown Voices Coalition, the Hance Park Conservancy, and others) will weigh in on this issue, it is my hope that the debate is civil.
I, personally, am finished weighing in on the dog park. My priorities are based on that list above.
…in which I add a smartphone component to bicycles and bicycling.
As a technology fan, I like following along with all the cool ways in which technology is embedded in various things. At the risk of sounding somewhat hypocritical, I’m a fan of the “connected cars” movement. I think that there needs to be some sort of safety feature that disables user intervention with that tech when the car is in motion. But I generally like how cars are becoming more aware of their surroundings.
I don’t have a car. I have a bicycle. Before I got my bicycle, I researched some software for bicycling and found that the iPhone’s marketing slogan is true here: there’s an app for that. I bought an iPhone mount for my bike and downloaded a couple cycle computer apps: Cyclemeter ($4.99) and BikeBrain (free download, $1.99 in-app upgrade).
The advantage that an iPhone cycle computer has over a traditional hard-wired cycle computer is that the iPhone can do more things than just figure out how fast you’re going and where you are in space. It’s your bicycle’s built-in stereo system: the speaker is pretty loud and rather impressive. Need to figure out the best route? Use Google Maps to give you some bicycle directions. The list goes on and on. (I haven’t tested telephone calls while moving yet. I have a feeling that might not work. Something I refuse to test: texting.)
There’s one major caveat to the iPhone as a cycle computer: It uses GPS to calculate everything and there is a definite delay of about three seconds in the system. (That might not seem like much but 3 seconds traveling at 13 mph is about 60 feet in distance.) When you start your trip, you have to wait for the iPhone to receive GPS signals–and when it does, you’ll get some initially erroneous readings as the iPhone places where you are in space.
Caveats aside, it’s still a good thing to have. I’m still testing out both apps. Cyclemeter is a very robust app that has a myriad of features beyond the basic functions of a cycle computer. Cyclemeter has a text-to-speech engine that will speak to you at pre-defined intervals of a distance or time. A very cool feature is that it will read you your Facebook notifications as they come in or Twitter replies and DMs. A lot of Cyclemeter’s features are for recreational or competitive cycling; for instance, one can define routes and have competitions against one’s self or against others. In fact, the screen captures I have in this post are from Cyclemeter.
BikeBrain is a much simpler app. It’s a free download; however, if you want a couple more features, you can purchase an in-app upgrade. It doesn’t speak to you nor does it read you your Facebook notifications. What it has that Cyclemeter doesn’t have is a map. The compass is a bit directionally challenged but that might just be my iPhone or my part of the world. A very neat feature of BikeBrain is that it’s a feel-good app: It will tell you how much CO2 you haven’t emitted by riding a bicycle instead of driving a car. On my trips today to and from the Downtown Phoenix Public Market, a distance just under four miles, I saved about 2 lbs in CO2 emissions by riding a bicycle instead of driving a car. (Go me!)
Both apps, because they are essentially GPS apps, will track your location and plot where you are and where you’ve been on a map. I think that Cyclemeter’s map is a bit more accurate. On a trip up and down 3rd Ave in midtown Phoenix, Cyclemeter mapped which side of the street I was on pretty accurately. There’s a tradeoff: to do that, Cyclemeter has to poll GPS signals rather frequently and that goes through your iPhone’s battery very quickly. BikeBrain’s map isn’t as detailed as Cyclemeter’s but I think that it’s because it doesn’t poll GPS position as frequently.
As I learn more about both apps, I’ll share them here. What apps are you using to make your urban cycling experience more enjoyable? Or are you a purist and just enjoying all the scenery as it goes by, laughing because you’re in the environment instead of being in a metal box?
…in which I express concern over HR 7, the latest Federal transportation bill that would gut sustainable transportation funding.
[source: League of American Bicyclists] We need you to help us maintain pressure on Congress for a smart, modern transportation bill. Both chambers of Congress are moving towards floor debates on their versions of the bill, so we are again asking you to take action.The current Senate transportation bill (MAP-21) weakens walking and biking programs. To improve the bill, we’re asking senators to vote for a bipartisan amendment to guarantee local governments a voice in transportation decisions and allow them to build sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways that keep people safe.
In the House, we are asking representatives to oppose the House transportation bill. Despite the fact that walking and bicycling infrastructure is a low-cost investment that creates more jobs per dollar than any other kind of highway spending, the House bill eliminates dedicated funding for walking and biking altogether.
Senate: Support the bipartisan Cardin-Cochran amendment
As written, the Senate’s transportation bill removes dedicated funding for walking and biking and allows state DOTs to opt-out of safe street programs. The Cardin-Cochran amendment ensures local governments can fund walking and biking infrastructure.
Tell your senators:
Local governments deserve a voice in transportation. The Cardin-Cochran amendment ensures that cities and counties have a voice in making transportation decisions for safer streets in their communities.
Safety matters. Bicycle and pedestrian deaths make up 14% of all traffic fatalities, but only 1.5% of federal funds go towards making walking and biking safer. These programs provide funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, and bikeways that make streets safe for all users.
Active transportation is a wise investment. Walking and biking infrastructure is low-cost, creates more jobs per dollar than any other kind of highway spending, and is critical to economic development for main street America.
House: Say “NO” to H.R. 7
On the other side of Congress, the House is about to consider a transportation bill that reverses 20 years of progress in making streets safer for people. Despite the fact that walking and biking make up 12% of trips but receive only 1.5% of federal funding, the House bill eliminates dedicated funding for walking and biking. It’s time to defeat this bill.
Tell your representative:
HR 7 takes us back to the 1950s. HR 7 takes us back to a 1950s system by eliminating dedicated funding for biking and walking AND kicking transit out of the highway trust fund. We need a transportation bill to meet 2012 needs, not 1950 needs.
HR 7 doesn’t invest wisely. Federal transportation laws should invest our finite resources in cost-effective, efficient infrastructure solutions that create jobs and keep the economy moving. The House bill eliminates walking and biking, despite the fact that walking and bicycling infrastructure is low-cost and creates more jobs per dollar than any other kind of highway funding.
HR 7 makes streets more dangerous for kids. By repealing the successful and effective Safe Routes to School program, the House bill makes the streets more dangerous for kids on their walks and bike rides to school.