My April 26th Daily Tar Heel guest column:
During the November campaign, I spoke of tapping into Chapel Hill’s “talent, innovation and creativity,” a reflection of my belief that good governance flows from maximizing citizen involvement.
How best to tap Chapel Hill’s wisdom?
Continue reading Tapping into our community’s aggregate wisdom
A Web 2.0 nod to Spock and Kirk.
What if I endeavored “to construct a pneumonic memory circuit using stone knives and bear skins”?
To wit, could I recreate the NextBus system using “off the shelf” Web 2.0 infrastructure and cheap gear?
For a modestly discounted fee of $850,000? Yes! Yes! Yes!
My tinkertoy Web 2.0 application might resemble the MoloGoGo web service: Continue reading Catch the NextBus VII – Stone knives and bear skins…
If I wasn’t focused on bridging our community’s digital divide, I might be tempted to ignore the ridiculously high price Chapel Hill is paying for NextBus’ proprietary system, avoid the recalcitrance of some of our staff and forgo the hassle of trying to undo a “done deal”.
Yet, while alternatives exist, I can’t stand by as we waste a million dollar opportunity to advance the social, economic and operational goals of our town.
What alternatives? Portsmouth UK’s system, with bus stop Wifi hotspots, offers an attractive model for Chapel Hill.
What waste?
Imagine ubiquitous Wifi-MESH Internet connectivity spreading several hundred feet beyond each transit corridor – covering each Park-n-Ride.
For the same $949,025 we could blanket huge swaths of Town with a citizen-owned network.
Near the end of my day of NextBus posting, here’s a quick overview of my and others impressions of the NextBus system.NextBus provides near realtime tracking of vehicles by analyzing their predicted movements, modeling traffic conditions, estimating location and then verifying position. In 2003, this combination of GPS, cell and computer technologies probably had a bit of a WOW factor.
A quick check of the NextBus tracking site demonstrates a reasonably responsive interface.
Boulder, Colorado, as noted in these December 12th, 2005 Transportation Advisory Board minutes, has had a few problems:
Cris Jones presented information showing an increase in numbers of people accessing the NexBus website. Still have telecommunications issues. 11 signs have problems with cell network and are not working. Should be fixed within the next couple of months. Information is pulled every two minutes through the orbital technology, so can only see busses every two minutes. Project is in the works to improve this. HOP and Buff Bus have much better prediction times than the rest of the RTD system.
So did Arlington, Virginia:
The NextBus technology service which allowed riders of the 38B Ballston-Farragut Square line to get real-time arrival information on their computers, cell phone, or web-enabled PDA has ended. The NextBus technology was installed on the 38B buses in September, 2001. However, the sevice turned out to be unreliable and the NextBus contract was not renewed. Service ended on March 1, 2004.
Zooming to February 19th, 2006, this San Franciscan gives a qualified “thumbs up”:
I find that NextBus works very well for my commute on the MUNI in San Francisco. I have a choice of taking a bus that stops two blocks from my house or a streetcar three blocks away. The streetcar is covered by NextBus but the bus is not. Both lines supposedly run every twenty minutes but in reality are rarely on time. As I leave my house, I check the streetcar on NextBus and if there is one coming in between 5 and 15 minutes I head down to the streetcar stop and catch it, otherwise I take my chances with the bus. It is very reassuring to know exactly when the streetcar will arrive. The accuracy of NextBus is uncanny. When NextBus says the streetcar will arrive in one minute, I can always see it down the tracks a block or two away.
The only bad thing about NextBus and MUNI is that only 10 of the agency’s 86 lines are covered. Cost is obviously a factor. Each vehicle needs a GPS receiver and radio transmitter and of course there is the expense of the software and web hosting. An approximate idea of the cost can be gleaned from this public document (pdf) which shows that it will cost AC-Transit, another San Francisco Bay Area agency about $1 million for equipment, implementation and seven years of operating expenses for a NextBus system covering 199 buses on 25 routes including 44 electronic signs along with mobile and web access.
December 25th, 2005, another San Franciscan not only notes the secret “backdoors” into NextBus’ tracking system:
Tipped off by the fine folks at the SFist, I’ve learned that there are “secret†links to MUNI routes not listed in the main Nextbus directory, meaning that for a good chunk of MUNI’s routes, you can see exactly where the buses are in real time. (This will probably mean nothing to you if (a) you do not live in San Francisco or (b) are not a hard-core public transportation zealot. You have been warned in advance that this post contains some frighteningly pedantic information.)
This is fantastic because, at long last, MUNI riders can now capture irrefutable evidence of those two hour minute driver breaks at the end of the line. (I can second Mattymatt’s observation that the standard MUNI driver response: “Another bus will be along in a minute,†is pretty much the norm.)
but observes that real-world discrimination has a way of leaking into cyberspace:
Some bus lines are wired; some are not. In fact, when we examine this list, it’s interesting that nearly every route which limns the rich and superficial pockets of the Marina is listed (including the rinky-dink 41!), while the crosstown routes that serve the people who don’t wear overpriced Hugo Boss suits on a regular basis (the 29, the 38 — at 54,000 daily passengers, the nation’s busiest bus line, and the 71) aren’t wired up yet. Nor are any of the Owl lines. The latter, in particular, would be helpful for those who need to catch the only damn buses running at 3 AM and stand waiting in the shivering cold with an empty wallet and a dead cell phone (thus precluding a taxi) for 90 minutes hoping to hell the bus in question will actually stop for them.
The Federal Transit Administration observes that adding “predictability” into the transit system does increase ridership:
While waiting may always be a part of the commuter experience – in a car or on a bus – commuters appear to be less affected by “hurry sickness†if they simply know how long they will be waiting.
Some of the most successful transit agencies have taken advantage of technology to deliver real time transit information to riders on their palm pilots or cell phones. Others have created web-based trip planners. A great example of this is on our ridership web page. In Ithaca, New York, the local transit agency (Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit) added trip planning software to its website in March 2002. The trip planner lets customers select routes and schedules 24 hours a day, 7 days a week based on mode, need for a bike rack, wheel chair accessibility, and traffic conditions. Within one year, fixed route bus ridership increased almost 4 percent.
In Ventura County, California, the Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA) has seen real results from adopting new technology. In August 2002, they contracted with NEXTBus on behalf of VISTA and five other municipal transit operators in the county to provide bus tracking and arrival prediction services. Approximately 100 buses have been equipped with tracking equipment. Now, arrival times and related information is provided on electronic signs at 26 transit transfer points and via the internet. The result? Between 2003 and 2004, ridership increased over 15%.
Clearly, the strategic use of information technology can be an important tool for attracting new riders – especially among today’s hurried commuters.
I won’t argue against the FTA. It makes sense that eliminating uncertainty in the transit system will increase overall satisfaction leading to increased ridership.
But we don’t need NextBus’ system to remove that uncertainty.
Thank you town staff, Ms. Hall especially, for the assistance in assembling this information.
April 24th, 2006 – two days ago – after concerns were raised about the NextBus, Inc. deal – the town signed a contract with NextBus, Inc. for their proprietary system.
Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you’re my only hope.
The schedule of work starts May 1st, 2006:
This will cover 14 signs, a website with 26 routes and equipment for 83 buses.
What a terrible deal compared to the recent ACTransit’s!.
ACTransit: 100 signs, 25 routes, 199 vehicles, 7 year warrantee – $1,031,079.
Chapel Hill: 14 signs, 26 routes, 83 vehicles, unknown warrantee – $949,025.
[UPDATE:]
May 8th I had an opportunity to speak with one of the folk from ACTransit who negotiated their great deal.
Turns out ACTransit got for their $1M:
- 54 new signs, 46 existing
- 125 new vehicles, 74 existing
- 13 new routes, 12 existing
7 years of support for their existing and new infrastructure.
New material: 54 signs, 125 vehicles, 13 routes. Coverage for existing 46 signs, 74 vehicles and 12 routes. Chapel Hill: 14 signs, 83 vehicles, 26 routes.
What a great deal!
I’ve contacted our IT director, Bob Avery, to get the detailed specifications, the criteria used to select a vendor and the results of comparing various solutions.
General Tagge: What of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.
Darth Vader: The plans you refer to will soon be back in our hands.
Admiral Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Even without the Death Star’s plans, based on Exhibit A of the contract, the obvious, expensive problems of this system are evident.
Six of seven questions to NextBus reveal a concern about additional costs due to excessive cellular phone charges. The concern appears to center on keeping the data flow to less than 5MB (megabytes) per month.
NextBus will be reselling Cingular Service to the town to support this data flow.
As an individual, I can get unlimited Cingular data service for $60 per month (that is, I can get it where their cruddy signal can reach – imagine NextBus’ problems getting a decent signal!). I have to believe it’ll be quite a bit cheaper for NextBus.
Is this a misplaced concern from a transit system with a 2006-2007 operating fund of $13.6 million ( $5M from UNC, $2.6M from Chapel Hill)?
But that’s beside the point! Why cellular at all?
We should be using a standards-based system that supports fixed and mobile networking, is expandable using off-the-shelf components, satisfies the highspeed connectivity demands of our first-responders and, for gosh sakes, advances the town’s technology infrastructure.
Two birds – one stone or a pig in the poke?
I hope the Council can intervene before the pig comes home to roost….
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
…an innovative, modern bus system, owned by the public of the East Bay. Its family tree dates back to 1869…the year America’s two coasts were joined by the transcontinental railroad with the driving of the golden spike. In the same year, 1869, the Suez Canal opened, linking the Mediterranean with the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. That’s the year when AC Transit’s first predecessor began carrying passengers from the Jack London Waterfront into burgeoning Oakland in a horse-drawn rail car.
on January 18th, 2006 cut a new deal with NextBus, Inc. covering:
[ UPDATED May 8th, 2006 after speaking to ACTransit ]
Cost? $1,031,079
Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with NextBus, Inc., for real time bus arrival information on two BRT/Rapid lines and at two BART/AC Transit Centers, for a capital investment including a seven-year warrantee, in the amount of $1,031, 079.
Sounds like a much better deal than 14 signs, our small smaller (83) fleet, at a cost of $949,025.
There’s an interesting breakout of costs in the contract.
One item that caught my attention, $201,600 for airtime. Nearly 1/5th of the contracted cost goes to communication, an expensive element that distinguishes this proprietary technology from the standards-based, dual-use WiFi/WiMax-based alternatives.
Continue reading Catch the NextBus III – ACTransit’s Better Deal
Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster – with Lessons for the Triangle
When: Wednesday, April 26th, 7 to 9 pm
Where: McDougle Middle School,
900 Fayetteville Rd., Carrboro
Hosted by NC WARN: Click here for more info
Images from NC-WARN and 180mph.com
Sandy Carmany, District 5 representative for the Greensboro City Council, has set a high standard of public outreach for elected officials with her ‘blog .
This blog is my attempt to have an ongoing dialog with citizens and keep you up to date on issues I deal with on the Greensboro City Council and other governmental bodies on which I serve. I hope to provide information and details so you will know “the rest of the story.”
She started her grand experiment March 17th, 2005
Thanks to the urging and encouragement from numerous bloggers, I am going to attempt to publish this blog and focus on the various issues I must deal with as a Greensboro City Council member. I hope to explain my stands on issues and solicit your input and concerns in order to make more informed decisions.
I’ve followed the travails of Greensboro’s Council, via Sandy’s ‘blog, almost from day one. She’s eloquent, detailed and timely. And, quite obviously, dedicated.
But now she’s taking a step back to re-balance her commitment.
“I can either do my job or write about it, but I can’t do BOTH effectively right now,”
Quite right, I understand that problem.
So does Greensboro ‘blog guru Ed Cone.
She’s overwhelmed by the demands of answering detailed questions on complex issues. She’s tired as well of the pissy little reprimands for things like not responding fast enough to comments to suit some of her readers.
I don’t blame her a bit.
But, he understands, as do many other local ‘bloggers do, the “power of this medium” and believes Carmany will rise again:
I’m sure Carmany will keep blogging, because she’s a pragmatist and she gets the power of this medium. We’re lucky to have her in Greensboro, and we need more of what she’s doing, not less.
She’s a shining light in a landscape populated by politicians unwilling to effectively reach out to their constituencies.
I hope Sandy will rediscover her balance soon.
One of the issues the soon to be disbanded Technology Committee discussed in the last year was a proposal for digital signs along our bus transit routes to report bus ETAs.
Just a week after voting to dissolve the group, the Town is poised to make an extremely expensive technology mistake.
While other municipalities, like Portsmouth UK, with 305 buses, and Cedar Rapids, with a planned 50 bus deployment, are getting security, digital ETA and both fixed and mobile Internet access, we’re about to spend $950K of Federal monies on a proprietary, single-use system from NextBus, Inc.
From the April 23rd HeraldSun:
Kurt Neufang, interim director of Chapel Hill Transit, which serves Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the UNC campus, said the digital information signs will help make the system more convenient for riders. Neufang said he hopes the signs will be installed and working by August.
“We’re trying to get it done before the beginning of the [fall] semester,” Neufang said.
Federal money helped fund the bulk of the $949,025 project, he said.
Nothing like over paying big bucks for the privilege of proprietary technology lock-in.
Why “for a few dollars less”?
Cedar Rapids is spending $125K on their 7 mile long system covering more stops, with security, mobile access and the capability for their Motorola mesh network to carry police, fire and other first-responder network traffic.
Another example of the wasted opportunity: St. Cloud, Florida
So, for about twice the cost of 14 digital bus stop signs the community of St. Cloud is getting town-wide ubiquitous FREE high speed broadband.
Just a great example of how a citizen’s board can intervene before the Town makes a seriously expensive technology expenditure mistake.
I’ll be trying, as a citizen, to get our Council to try an approach that maximizes the use of these funds, to reconsider NextBus and to substitute a solution that delivers much more for the citizen’s dollar.
[UPDATE:] Saw this article on St. Cloud’s initial rollout. There’s been a few bumps on the road but the first 45 days of service are quite impressive: “50,000 users sessions…just 842 help line calls….3,500 registered users and 176,189 hours of usage.”
The Technology Board discussed educational strategies for making sure the citizenry’s initial expectations aligned with the reality of any initial technology rollout.
[UPDATE:] Spoke with Cedar Rapid’s Five Seasons Parking and Transportation about their system. Short story: ETA works, realtime security video doesn’t, few folk using mobile Internet capability, educational effort ongoing. Portsmouth UK is a model I think we should investigate seriously.
The ‘net is the new Town Commons and the commons are under attack from the same feckless monopolists that charge us $200 billion in excess fees under the ’96 Telecommunications Act provisions to provide high-speed symetrical broadband but instead pilfered the bucks.
The latest offense? Throttling ubiquitous access to ‘net-based services.
Local audio activist and muni-network proponent BrianR has covered the salient issues quite well.
If you want a 2-minute video synopsis, here’s a clip from MyDD.
A Chapel Hill municipally-sponsored network will help keep the commons free for all. Next month, if all goes well, a public forum will be held on the benfits of citizen-owned communications.
Via Bora at Science and Politics
Julius Robert Oppenheimer was born at New York City on this day in 1904. In school he took the math and science classes befitting his early genius, but he really thrived on languages. He was known to learn a language just to read a single book in the original language, and he once accepted a speaking assignment in the Netherlands that allowed only six weeks to learn the language before his presentation. He graduated from Harvard, but language was no barrier to getting his PhD in Germany before taking teaching positions at Berkeley and Cal Tech. He was tapped to head the Manhattan Project to build the first US atomic bombs, but like many of the brilliant characters involved, he chose to examine the ethics of creating such weapons. In the anti-communist furor of the early fifties, Oppenheimer was stripped of his security clearance, which ended his influence on science policy:
This is a world in which each of us, knowing his limitations, knowing the evils of superficiality and the terrors of fatigue, will have to cling to what is close to him, to what he knows, to what he can do, to his friends and his tradition and his love, lest he be dissolved in a universal confusion and know nothing and love nothing.
There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
We knew the world could not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: “I am became Death, the destroyers of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.
As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost and science can never regress.
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true.
– All from J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1904 – 1967
Where are today’s Oppenheimers?
With the current mad-ministrations reckless desire to wave a nuclear wand over Iran, and its history of scientific disregard, I guess even an modern-day Oppenheimer might not even be able to dissuade them from their madness.
With one stroke, the Mayor proposes to eliminate two committees whose roles have been controversial at times. Both committees are far from done with their tasks, so it’s hard to understand why Foy wants to kill them off.
Is it because they’re both pushing the envelope?
I sit on both committees, so, from the inside, I find it quite a strange idea that they’re done with their tasks.
Maybe it’s a measure of the Mayor’s inattention to these committee’s work. Hard to say, though I do look forward to his explanation on April 10th.
What are these committees actively doing?
The HWCC has constituted several sub-committees to review equity, environmental and transportation issues.
For instance, the environmental committee is working on a proposal requesting that UNC do a complete, scientific environmental baseline for HWA and its surrounds. We also are researching environmental metrics to apply. Once the baselines and metrics are established, the environmental effects of Carolina North, positive and negative, can be measured over the next 100 years. UNC has an unique opportunity to study “green technologies and techniques” and using the Carolina North project as a driver for research and development.
Without the HWCC, who will advocate for that grand vision on behalf of the citizenry?
As for the Technology committee, yes, municipal networking is moving forward but that’s just a small part of the technology portfolio. Our town is way behind the technology curve and town management, to date, has shown no real interest in moving us forward.
For instance, it was the committee that identified technology-related cost efficiencies and savings in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Besides that, the committee has discussed and proposed a number of enhancements in: open document standards, open access to governmental data, open infrastructure, accessibility, bi-directional citizen communications, self-service operations, etc.
A number of these proposals have been approved by Council but their implementation lags.
And, to be fairly blunt, whether from disinterest in the subject, lack of time or inability, most of the Council has paid little attention to understanding and utilizing common-place technologies to drive costs out of service delivery, enhance citizen participation in governance, create transparency and generally improve the overall performance of government.
Without the Technology Committee, who will suggest and advocate for these technology-related improvements?
TO: Town Council
FROM: Kevin Foy, Mayor
SUBJECT: Conclusion of Service: Horace Williams Citizens Committee and Technology Committee
DATE: April 10, 2006
The Horace Williams Citizens Committee was established in October 2002 to assist the Council in preparing for deliberations with the University of North Carolina regarding the development of the Horace Williams property.â€
The Technology Committee was formed in 1998 and charged with advising the Council on the formation of a technology plan, including the formation of a town-wide network.
Both Committees have benefited from the work of dozens of citizens, council members, and town staff, and have put countless hours into their work. The Horace Williams Citizens Committee Report and the recent presentation on Wireless Internet from the Technology Committee are evidence of the time and effort involved.
Having completed their missions, I petition the Council that we thank all existing and former committee members for their dedication and public service, and that we now conclude the service of the Technology and Horace Williams Citizens Committees, effective June 30, 2006.
………
If you’re interested in the effective use of technology to enhance our local governance or in retaining a strong, local and non-political voice in the Carolina North mega-development, I suggest you contact the Mayor and Council by April 10th – ask them to keep these citizen voices active.
Cross-posted from Audio Activism
In an effort to bring a free public WiFi network to Chapel Hill and to let our elected representatives know how we feel I’ve created an online petition.
To: Chapel Hill Town Council
The time has come for the Town of Chapel Hill to build a free, community-owned, public municipal network. The network should have wireless access and provide an open, unfiltered, and unmonitored connection to the Internet available to ALL people. It must be maintained by a local nonprofit for the people of Chapel Hill. Not by a private business or corporation.
We request that the Chapel Hill Town Council act swiftly to bring this service to the people.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
It will be presented to the Town Council as soon as posible. If you are a citizen of Chapel Hill please go to http://www.petitiononline.com/chwifi/petition.html and sign it. Thank you!
From tonight’s agenda, Chapel Hill’s new communications plan the opening paragraph emphasizes a friendly openness:
The Town Council believes that open communication with all citizens is an important community value. The Town of Chapel Hill makes a consistent effort to be a helpful, accessible, consistent, unintimidating and human source of information; and works to assure that those served always feel welcome.
Further on the staff elaborates on
A communication program built on strong themes is more effective than a program with scattered and unrelated messages. Key themes will be communicated frequently in a variety of ways, using simple, repetitive messages. Messages gain power from consistency and repetition.
…
· The Town of Chapel Hill is an ethical, effective and well-managed government.
· Town tax dollars are spent wisely.
· Town staff and the Town Council are public information ambassadors.
· The Town of Chapel Hill is an open organization, and citizens know how to access information.
…
But when asked to preserve some previous openness, the Town Council deferred. The request was simple enough, restore one citizen to the Council’s email distribution list tonight and ask staff to develop a process so any of our citizens can join in the very near future.
As a member of the list, the Council receives timely bite size flash reports on the advisory boards, bulletins on police and fire incidents, complaints and compliments from citizens (very illuminating) and fresh agendas. Access to the list nearly halved the amount of time I spent researching relevant material.
Unfortunately, a simple, no cost, nearly no effort request for an action conforming to both the spirit and the legality of the State’s open records laws has become a bit of a quagmire.
Any other citizens want broad, timely access to the exact same information our Council receives?