We can’t do just one thing

One hidden aspect of the thrust to build higher in Bermuda is the effect more dense development will have on the infrastructure: water supply, solid and liquid wastes disposal, noise, traffic, and so on. Here are my thoughts about one way neighbours of the new Berkeley Institute will be affected when the school opens. I offer this as an illustration of how our actions to fill one purpose can and often do have unintended effects:

Within six months or so we can reasonably expect that the new Berkeley Institute (BI) will be up and running. As a resident of Berkeley Road (BR) I have watched as increasingly this Road has become a commuter route into and out of Hamilton. It is used as a matter of course by residents of North Shore Road all the way to Spanish Point, and as a matter of choice by many residents from the eastern end of the Island.

Already, the junction of Berkeley Road and St John’s Road (SJR) is a bottleneck during the morning rush hour and I foresee that junction becoming a traffic tangle once the school opens. Vehicles traveling west on SJR wanting to turn left onto BR will likely back up to the SJR roundabout. Vehicles having discharged passengers at BI and proceeding south on BR to merge into eastbound SJR traffic will be backed up to the school entrance. To escape the bottleneck, some traffic leaving BI will use Mount Hill, adding to the existing congestion at the Langton Hill/Mount Hill junction and at the Langton Hill/SJR junction.

For the northern stretch of BR, traffic for BI, Northlands Middle School, West Pembroke Primary combined with commuter traffic will render BR virtually impassable at morning and afternoon school rush hours.

In essence, BR residents will be trapped in or out of neighbourhood during school entry and exit times. Traffic density and flow (and other infrastructural issues) will need to be a required part of the deliberations for any and all development in the future if we are not to create many problems in the act of trying to solve one.

Comments

[Prospero on 23.03.06 at 15:03]

"Traffic density and flow (and other infrastructural issues) will need to be a required part of the deliberations for any and all development in the future if we are not to create many problems in the act of trying to solve one."

Excellent piece, Mr. Hayward. Sadly, tho', it's the infrastructural problems you refer to that we routinely overlook whenever we embark on a major construction/development project. Can you imagine the problems that will ensue if the Hamilton waterfront redevelopment plan goes ahead as is currently envisaged? The plan clearly anticipates yet another influx of imported people to fill all of those new office buildings and apartments. Which means more traffic. Which means increased congestion on the roads, increased bottlenecks. Christ, we can't even get traffic to flow properly through the City streets with the volume of traffic we have now ...

[tilti on 23.03.06 at 16:07]

And you haven't even considered the thought of having a thousand kids on tricked out scooters racing up and down the road and thier ridiculous mufflers howling as they file in at 8:30am.
If I were you, I would petition to put about 10 speed bumps on that stretch of road.

[Triforce on 23.03.06 at 16:49]

Agreed. As it is, entering the city from the north is usually the quickest way in and it can have its problems when there's for example roadwork going on. When new Berkeley opens, to add to the many schools in the Pembroke area (BHS, Saltus and Dellwood should be added to Stuart's list), it's gonna be tough.

However I don't think something along the lines of Limey's suggested high-rise apartment for singles would affect traffic negatively as most tenants would walk or at worst ride to their place of work.

[Martin on 23.03.06 at 18:05]

"I offer this as an illustration of how our actions to fill one purpose can and often do have unintended effects".

I would have to agree with you. It seems quite amazing that at the planning stages, someone somewhere did not appear to think it through.

And, whilst I would not treat this subject lightly, I wonder if it will take an accident or two before someone says..."we need to look at that". Remind me - how long did it take them to do something about Collectors Hill?

I don't know the "lie of the land" so to speak, but is there no egress possible from the rear of the school? At least that way, one might set up a continuous loop through the grounds and out from the rear, and keep traffic flowing.

Driving out of the Laundry car park onto BR today - even when it's quiet - is a bit "hit and miss". I can see that doing that when school is coming out, will be fun!

[SmokingGun on 23.03.06 at 18:17]

I visited the new Ikea store in Boston recently and the lines of cars backed up on the highway was incredible. After talking with one of the locals I found out that for the first month the store opened they literally couldn't leave their homes on week-ends because traffic was so backed up. If that's how it's going to be with Berkley then I can imagine it will quickly become a major bone of contention.

Time to get the legislation on the limo buses rolling?

[Lisa on 23.03.06 at 19:50]

Stuart - have you talked to anyone in government about this impending problem? If so, what was their response?

If the worst comes to the worst you could always reclaim the street by getting all the residents together and do a sit down protest in the road until the government agrees to do something about it ;-)

L.

[Craig on 23.03.06 at 19:53]

And the points raised by Stuart underline once again why the consolidation of senior schools in the vicinity of Hamilton is a bad idea.

One of the mega schools (Berkeley or Cedarbridge) should have been developed at an outlying site - Spice Valley or Whitney come to mind.

Traffic around Hamilton is just fine when schools are not in. We can argue about whether the cause is private schools or public ones - but the simple fact is that with all of them (private and public) expanding their capacity - the problem is getting worse.

[thisgrassman on 23.03.06 at 20:18]

um um - if more people lived in hamilton - including children - then they could walk to school like they did in "the old days"

The children thats is.

[stuart J Hayward on 23.03.06 at 22:27]

Triforce writes:
"However I don't think something along the lines of Limey's suggested high-rise apartment for singles would affect traffic negatively as most tenants would walk or at worst ride to their place of work."

Unfortunately, this assumes at least a couple of things we can't be certain of:

It assumes "their place of work" is nearby. Unless there is some restriciton on vehicle ownership, there is no guarantee that any resident of a high-rise would walk or ride anywhere.

It also assumes that the residents would not be delivering and picking up children to and from school (Berkeley Institute, possibly?).

We really do need to wring out the ramifications of schemes before going too far in accepting or promoting them as solutions.

[stuart J Hayward on 23.03.06 at 22:38]

Martin writes:
"I don't know the "lie of the land" so to speak, but is there no egress possible from the rear of the school?"

The rear of the school abuts a housing development called Princess Estate — no chance of egress there.

[stuart J Hayward on 23.03.06 at 22:46]

Lisa writes
"Stuart - have you talked to anyone in government about this impending problem? If so, what was their response?

If the worst comes to the worst you could always reclaim the street by getting all the residents together and do a sit down protest in the road until the government agrees to do something about it ;-)"

Nope, haven't talked to anyone in govt about it yet. I'm not sure I'd put my own bod in the road in front of teenagers 'high' on hormones.

[Michael Taylor on 24.03.06 at 10:29]

Elsewhere in the world these big developments get strategically located and come with upsizing and addition of the roads in the vicinitiy. This is why Bermuda is in sore need of "city" planning on an island wide scale. Lets hope this is taken up more effectively in the near future because its going to take some time to sort out the congestion and polution problems we have already created.

[stuart J Hayward on 24.03.06 at 11:31]

Elsewhere in the world they've lots more land to devote to roads. I'd be hugely surprised if Bermuda builds any more roads. We can't really copy other places, mainly because we're already so far in front of virtually all of them with our population density. What we need is some highly innovative thinking that doesn't merely react...

[Zoom on 24.03.06 at 11:34]

Bermuda needs a plan to build sidewalks!

[Michael Taylor on 24.03.06 at 14:03]

Mr. Hayward,

We certainly don't have the space to build roads that they do other places. This is one of the main reasons an island wide development plan is sorely needed.

More dense development could actually be used to relieve traffic and infrastructure problems by taking advantage of currently underutilised infrastructure. For example if new business districts were started some distance away from Hamilton, this could help relieve traffic volume into and out of the city. While this example is the opposite of more dense development from an island wide perspective, it would be viewed as more dense development from the perspective of the nearby vicinity.

The people involved in major development projects elsewhere create computer models and run traffic simulations to determine the impact and identify and test needed infrastructure upgrades. If this has not been done with regards to Berkely and Cedarbridge (at the very least it wasn't done properly)that is sad.

Unfortunately good planning is irrelevant to some of the problems we've already created. I don't see new major roads being put in either but some better road engineering and is needed in areas like the Paget Stop Lights, Berkely Road and Front Street. I wasn't the only one who noticed how much smoother traffic flowed after Fabian took all the traffic lights out. Clearly a more efficient traffic control system there would be beneficial. Civil Engineering is a job for experts not peanuts like myself, so I'm not going to suggest specific solutions or speculate as to where problems may occur in the future. We should be paying people to tell us.

While upgrading of parts of our road system is very difficult and expensive, should we just give up? There are solutions and while they may be expensive they should be factored in to the costs of new developments such as the new Waterfront.

[stuart J Hayward on 24.03.06 at 15:13]

Michael Taylor writes:
"We certainly don't have the space to build roads that they do other places. This is one of the main reasons an island wide development plan is sorely needed."

Since the 1974 when the Development and Planning Act was passed, we have had an Island-wide Development Plan that was legislated to be updated every five years. Unfortunately, the developers have been more busy to exploit it than successive administrations have been to shore it up. And, since every facet of our economic system depends on expanding markets (the same as other pyramid schemes) there has been a reluctance to address population growth through the lens of carrying capacity and sustainability.

"More dense development could actually be used to relieve traffic and infrastructure problems by taking advantage of currently underutilised infrastructure. For example if new business districts were started some distance away from Hamilton, this could help relieve traffic volume into and out of the city. While this example is the opposite of more dense development from an island wide perspective, it would be viewed as more dense development from the perspective of the nearby vicinity."

The strategy introduced by the UBP about three decades ago was to steer development into already dense areas rather than having the entire Island become urban. If one takes the view that we must plan for the seventh generation (an Iriquois six-nations precept) then starting new urban/commercial centres is not a solution, but merely a repeat of what we have already done — and what has led us to where we are today.

"The people involved in major development projects elsewhere create computer models and run traffic simulations to determine the impact and identify and test needed infrastructure upgrades. If this has not been done with regards to Berkely and Cedarbridge (at the very least it wasn't done properly)that is sad."

Both Berkeley and Cedarbridge locations were driven by the availability of land. Other considerations were secondary.

"Unfortunately good planning is irrelevant to some of the problems we've already created. I don't see new major roads being put in either but some better road engineering and is needed in areas like the Paget Stop Lights, Berkely Road and Front Street. I wasn't the only one who noticed how much smoother traffic flowed after Fabian took all the traffic lights out. Clearly a more efficient traffic control system there would be beneficial. Civil Engineering is a job for experts not peanuts like myself, so I'm not going to suggest specific solutions or speculate as to where problems may occur in the future. We should be paying people to tell us."

The Paget traffis lights were exactly what told to us by people who were paid. Most of our engineering and financial professions have lost sight of the original relationship — that theirs was to provide service for people, not the other way around. These days, peoples' needs are subordinate to that of cars, for example, and humans are valued mostly for what they can contribute to the economy. This mindset would view four lanes of roadway from end to end as a good thing, regardless of whether there were safe places for children (or adults) to ride bicycles.

"While upgrading of parts of our road system is very difficult and expensive, should we just give up? There are solutions and while they may be expensive they should be factored in to the costs of new developments such as the new Waterfront."

No one suggested "we just give up". To the contrary, I suggest we think harder and in new ways. The "elsewheres" you refer to can be found anywhere. There aren't many Bermudas. Dumbing this island down to resemble any other place is s cosmic crime, imho.

[Triforce on 24.03.06 at 15:40]

I agree Stuart with your response. Many other factors need to be considered. I trust that the reason that the Collectors' Hill project has only gotten started now is because much thought had to be put into planning for all situations, pedestrians, business owners, traffic, et. al.

Encouraging businesses to set up operations outside of Hamilton was something that I thought would be a good idea (e.g. Southside), but would that only serve to cause traffic or pollution issues in those areas that could be better served as open space or entertainment, etc?

I will say this much... the constant allowing of larger and larger sized vehicles on the island was done with seemingly zero foresight on the impact to everything else.

[SmokingGun on 24.03.06 at 16:31]

Stuart - I agree 100%.

Triforce - allowing the bigger the vehicles is just ridiculous. We should constantly be trying to scale down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the glass will eventually overflow if you keep pouring water into it. What I find funny is that we have Ministers who want all sorts of respect and yet they can't even enforce simple laws. Why will people take them seriously if they can't even take care of the simple stuff.

[Michael Taylor on 24.03.06 at 19:25]

Mr. Hayward,

I think I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying, and I am unsure if you agree with me, disagree or are just commenting. Maybe elaboration of my points will bring some calrity.

It is not a surprise that most of us are fed up with so called "experts" due to their past track record, particularly in Bermuda. The Paget stoplights example was a great illustration (had a feeling something along those lines was coming(; )of the reasons for this. I still believe the right experts, and the right amount of planning are a big part of the solution. Many innovations have been made in the field of civic planning in the past 20 years, in particular the use of computer modelling to predict and analyse complex human behavior patterns such as traffic.

Past governments made plans and neglected to enforce them or keep them up to date. We also have a tradition of employing overseas experts to handle our most diffcult problems and largest projects because of both cost reasons and lack of faith in our own. Government and developers should have learned that this is a mistake the hard way by now. Sadly they have not. Speaking as a Bermudian Mechanical Engineer I strongly believe that we should use local specialists whenever possible for at least two reasons:
1)They employ locally proven solutions rather than poorly fitting imported ones.
2)They are still available after the project is done and can easily be held accountable for any errors. As a result they tend to be far more careful.
I am not sure if by highlighting the poor track record of so called experts and planning you mean to suggest relying on professionals and master plans to guide us in these very complex matters does not work in Bermuda. If so, I think this is where we differ in opinion. If you mean throwing money at here today gone tomorrow random consultants who have the lowest price or are the "the leading experts in the metropolitan Chicago area", we are on the same page.

While our island is unique I believe there is much to be learned from places (starting at home) where we have sucessfully dealt with similar problems. Couple that with some "highly innovative" thinking and you have a chance to come up with a winner. Reinventions of the wheel are usually a disaster as is "dumbing this island down to resemble" somewhere else. I am very interested to hear your own innovative ideas in particular, because while we are debating some points your views are more similar to mine than may be apparent.

By your seventh generation point am I right in guessing part of your stance is that further population growth on the island must be avoided? This would not be something I disagree with.

Mr. Hayward and Triforce,

I am trying to keep any examples I use non-descript because as a non-expert I want to avoid making specific suggestions. The obvious danger is that the reader's imagination is going to differ from mine, possibly skewing the interpretation of my main points (planning is needed etc.). Two more Hamiltons, population/industrial escalation and things along those lines would be the opposite of a solution and would be the antithesis of innovative thinking. My imagination envisions revivals of places like Somerset Village, and perhaps new villages at Southside and Morgan's point where building and other regulations could be tailored to encourage certain types of businesses, while imitating the atmosphere of our old towns. The idea of working near where you live and having different kinds of buildings and industries in different districts is not exactly futuristic or foreign. Sounds like the Bermuda my Grandparents grew up in actually.

[Raptor on 25.03.06 at 09:12]

Posted by Michael Taylor on 24.03.06 at 19:25: “My imagination envisions revivals of places like Somerset Village, and perhaps new villages at Southside and Morgan's point where building and other regulations could be tailored to encourage certain types of businesses, while imitating the atmosphere of our old towns. The idea of working near where you live and having different kinds of buildings and industries in different districts is not exactly futuristic or foreign. Sounds like the Bermuda my Grandparents grew up in actually.”

I agree. Also I would support careful planning for Hamilton, including Phil’s idea of going somewhat higher towards the back of town in places, while supporting existing businesses in those neighborhoods.

I haven’t finished digesting this new plan for Hamilton. So far, I see aspects of it that are positive and necessary. I’m sure everyone pretty much agrees on the wisdom of moving out the containers, for example. It’s unfortunate that improvements cannot be made to Front Street without sacrificing the space and view to new buildings that seem to be quite generic in style.

All the successful city restorations I’ve seen have carefully maintained existing historic or older buildings and have incorporated those designs into new plans—keeping the character of the place intact. Bermuda has a long history of architecture that may have been influenced by other cultures but is unique and has developed to serve our purpose It is truly some of the most beautiful building anywhere in the world. I hear what tourists say when they visit Bermuda. The atmosphere is what attracts them. Otherwise, they would just go to Florida.

If it looks like Florida, it must be Florida.

[stuart J Hayward on 25.03.06 at 10:23]

Raptor writes
"I’m sure everyone pretty much agrees on the wisdom of moving out the containers, for example."

We know from experience that we can't clean up one area without dirtying some other(s). A container port needs a) marine access, b) land transport access and c) storage (for containers and the machinery to move them). Each of the alternitive sites poses challenges of finding/creating a deepwater port, heavy duty traffic movement, and unsightly storage along a shoreline. The "wisdom" of moving the containers out of Hamilton has to be balanced against the "wisdom" of the impact upon where we're moving them to.

I am guided by a quote from Einstein: "We can't use the same kind of thinking that got us into these problems to get us out of them"; and a Chinese proverb: "Unless we change direction, we will end up where we are headed."

Two modes of thought I believe must be changed:

1) that endless economic growth is really in our best interest

2) that it's okay for some to prosper through the impoverishment of others.

[stuart J Hayward on 25.03.06 at 11:10]

Michael Taylor writes:
“By your seventh generation point am I right in guessing part of your stance is that further population growth on the island must be avoided? This would not be something I disagree with.”

The seventh generation principle would lead us to look beyond this week’s paycheck, beyond next year’s vacation, beyond the next election, even beyond our grand-or great grand-children. Of course this is not easy to do, but it is an eye-opening concept. For example, by the seventh generation my offspring genes are joined with virtually everyone of my current generation. So even if I have a fierce desire to do only what’s best for my narrow family interest, I must not do harm to any in my community because their fortunes and mine are the same. Do you see the shift this can trigger in how we do “business” with each other?

Our current paradigm (economy-based) treats everything as though we’re in a race (competition) — who can get the most, first. We become so consumed by “getting ahead” we are largely unable to appreciate where we are. The prime problem with being always in race mode is that we won’t know who has won until the race is over — by which time it’s too late to appreciate the win…

As to population growth, the ideal would be that our population was kept to a level that was well within the margins of our carrying capacity. This is not an absolute, but we should understand that Bermuda could become a social and environmental pit (like the slums of Calcutta, even) and people could still survive. Given a choice, at what quality of life would we like to live? I’m sure it would be far from the Calcutta experience. At our preferred quality of life, how many people could fit on our 22 sq miles? (We probably can’t know an absolute number but we can get a fair estimate.) How then will we go about bringing and keeping our population well within the boundaries of that estimate? This is the path I see for an enlightened community. I’m hoping we’re smart enough to want work on the big picture.

[SmokingGun on 25.03.06 at 12:07]

Stuart - by the way, is it OK if I refer to you by just your first name?

I think you are absolutely correct in all you have to say about thinking forward as we act today. The biggest problem we have is that everything is moving so quickly that the temptation of getting everything today is just too enormous for many of those in the position to make final decisions. Every week we hear of a new development, a new IB setting up shop, a new line of larger cars coming in, more trucks etc. and there's always a select few who seem to be making out on all the dealing.

If we were a small city in the middle of the mid-west USA we could easily expand and allow for future growth in a controlled well planned manner. It wouldn't be difficult to maintain a city center that held onto it's historical foundation and as the people moved in you would just buy up more fields to grow. Bermuda, by it's pure nature has none of that luxury. We already are in effect a city center with virtually no-where else to go. What we do today must be thought of in terms of the impact it will have in 150 plus years out.

Our problem is that we have 12 IB's setting up shop in a month and they want office space, housing, transportation, schooling, entertainment etc. We also have a dozen Hotels who've jumped upon the gravy train of Condo-tel development. They can't wait till we have it all figured out so the pressure is on the developers and decision makers to hustle it up. And whenever there is pressure it automatically leads to undermining the control of our future planning.

It is for that reason I am so against the HSBC trying to do what they are with Triminghams and how they are going about it. It is why I feel the Waterfront proposal should be scaled back by a third. It is why I feel the back of town should not be left behind and that the Government, HSBC/IB, City of Hamilton and Bermuda as a whole should not just look for balance but enforce it as this massive project is undertaken.

[Michael Taylor on 25.03.06 at 12:10]

Mr. Hayward,

Thanks for the well explained follow up and for the valuable facts you provided in your previous post!

I think we need to decide what our fundamental goals for the Bermuda of the Future are, and "not do just one thing" now to shape it. I had presumed this was the main goal of the sustainable development study, but the reports I have been reading about it leave me a bit confused as to exactly what they are trying to achieve. Let's hope it turns out to be just the information we need.

[Martin on 25.03.06 at 12:12]

Stuart...and other contributors.

I put these this point up for comment from either those who "know" what is in the pipeline, and also for any who just wish to comment:

* There is a view around (as I understand it) that a decision in principle is to be made that Bermuda should support either a higher population of (say) 80-85,000 or alternatively to allow the current population to contract to around 50-55,000.

If this is the case, then clearly both "models" would have a significant impact on all aspects of Bermudian society.

[SmokingGun on 25.03.06 at 12:26]

Well Martin, I'm not in the know but I'd guess it would be pretty hard to turn back time. But then again a nasty spot of bird flu could put us all back to living on the pig farm.....

[Raptor on 25.03.06 at 13:41]

Yes, Stuart, I agree with you that the container area cannot just be moved anywhere, especially without considering all the ramifications of relocating it. Perhaps I should have written that it would be nice to get it off Front Street if possible, and I do think many people feel that way. But it does have to have somewhere reasonable to go, in a way that doesn't hurt others.

[stuart J Hayward on 26.03.06 at 09:17]

SmokingGun writes:
"Stuart - by the way, is it OK if I refer to you by just your first name?"

For sure!

[Denis Pitcher on 26.03.06 at 16:39]

I am of the belief that the solutions to our problems are out there, we just need to look to find them.

Despite the thought that ideas foreign to Bermuda arn't good for Bermuda, I think we need to do our best to compile and review all solutions that have been used to solve similar problems and evaluate whether they or a revised version will function as a solution here.

I have a few thoughts I'd like to share.

I'd like to propose the following questions:

In terms of the earlier discussion on school related traffic,

1. Why do people insist on dropping their kids off at school in the morning?

2. Why don't we have dedicated school buses?

In terms of the digital modelling of traffic
traffic and digital modelling:

3. Can we not utilize technology and our small size to our advantage or are people too phobic of it?

Example: If we embedded RFID (wireless identifier) chips in every license plate, we could effectively set up recievers island wide to track traffic flow real time. This would assist tremendously in being able to create computer models of traffic flow. For those who fear being tracked - a car is a luxury, not a right. If you don't want it, don't get a car.
By monitoring traffic flow, we can create traffic simulations that allow us to predict how infrastructure changes will impact our people.

Concerning the container docks,

4. Is it possible to create an artifical dock off-island rather then deal with the difficulties of managing it on existing space?

If we're looking to fill in hamilton harbour to create a parking area + new land. Could similar not be done just off north shore? What if we looked to create underground parking below, and container docks above and ran a frequent shuttle service to town?

If we're really looking at the big picture, then perhaps we should be considering more possibilities rather then limits. As I suggested, we could be reviewing solutions to problems outside of Bermuda to give us insight as to how they may help us solve our problems here.

Places like Singapore have dealt with heavy traffic issues by instituting such restrictions as banning private cars in the city during certain hours.

Places like Hong Kong have dealt with high population per sq mile issues by going high rather then filling all their land.

I'm not suggesting these solutions are ideal for our island. However what I will suggest is that if we are truly going to approach a 7th generation scenario, what we need to do is focus more on outlining the problems long before we create quick-fix solutions.

If we don't understand the actual problems to begin with, we'll never realise that we're lacking in infrastructure to support the solutions we create. In the end, without proper planning, all we'll end up creating is more problems.

[Andrew on 26.03.06 at 20:15]

RFID chips are now mandatory on bikes. Could they be leveraged to provide raw traffic modeling data that could be extrapolated to produce meaningful results?

[bob on 26.03.06 at 21:17]

RFID are MANDATORY? what exactly are these? I know they use 'datatag' but if this is a chip they better only put it on my license plate! And i would hope they put them in all GP cars to see what exactly people use them for.

[Denis Pitcher on 26.03.06 at 21:45]

Really? Since when and could you provide me with any idea of where I can go for more info?

Certainly they could be leveraged for quite a few uses, though there are a variety of RFID solutions so it would also depend on the type utilized. Some may not reach very far in distance and others may require power.

The data could be used to track bikes in the least, though I would love to see it utilized for cars. Such uses could include:
- tracking how many bike parking spots are utilized throughout the day in town, at what duration and help optimize by adding more/less spots and optimizing the duration of certain zones
- tracking how fast people go by measuring along a road by multiple points then dividing the distance by the time.
- Showcase what roads are used and how often.
- how weather affects travellers and bike usage

The data, especially if it containing all styles of vehicles, could be utilized to build models of traffic as it flows on our roads.

What you can do is measure points of congestion such as interchanges and junctions to consider how they could be revised to provide better traffic flow.

The common trips people make and perhaps ways to change the system to optimize it. General traffic flow on the island, and certain routes into town.

Potential reasons for accidents and speeds at which people take turns of high accident incidences.

Times and congestion...

The sky is the limit.

Technology isn't something to be as afread of, as long as it's used effectively and for a positive purpose.

If people have privacy concerns, the data chould be allocated to be managed by an independent group who will guarantee it's confidentiality so that individuals couldn't be themselves tracked, but we'd gather all the useful stats on the use of our roads.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 08:20]

I would be thinking of finding a way to remove any tags that came with my bike or car. Tagging peoples property is just plain f'd up no matter what justification you can come up with. There are tons of other ways to get useful info. There is no need to be monitoring people like pigs in a corporate farm. Independent groups can be infiltrated and info can and does leak.

Wanna curb traffic congestion it’s really simple! Implement an efficient public transportation service that people can count on. It’s 2006 and we still ain’t got shit to show!

[Denis Pitcher on 27.03.06 at 13:51]

Ice_cube,

I'm certain you'd end up being fined for removing the id tag. It's not really much different then having a license plate, just it's wireless rather then having to look to read it. Getting all uptight about it does little. If you have better ideas, I'd welcome hearing them.

In terms of your complaints against the public transportation service, perhaps you could be more specific? It has been some time since I've ridden a bus in Bermuda, but my recollection was that the system was relatively reliable when comparing it to systems elsewhere. When I was away at school in London, Ontario, I found the system there was terrible and often not on time. This is a difficulty that plagues systems in more places then just Bermuda.

Perhaps you'd be for including trackable tagging or GPS in the busses to allow for a more accurate estimate of when it will arrive and it's present location?

Otherwise, what exactly do you mean by "efficient"?

[SmokingGun on 27.03.06 at 14:04]

Denis - I wouldn't want to be forced to have my vehicle fitted with an RFID tag that was trackable. For a host of reasons and not just privacy and safety. There are numerous ways to track, record and devise plans to improve traffic flow without stomping on civil liberties.

As far as the RFID on bikes, that is a very low frequency program that involves having to scan the vehicle at very close quarters. It is primarily to deter theft and re-sale of parts.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 14:41]

Tagged like cattle and be fined for taking ones tag off. Yeah right! Sound wack as hell to me, then again I don’t see myself as a humble sheep that remains ever compliant to any of the Shepard’s wishes.

Transportation is something we’ve discussed here at length so I won’t go into it other than to say that the bus schedules could get doubled or even tripled and that a fast ferry system that served all parishes could ease the lives of many. Late night public transportation would be nice too. I can’t think of how many wouldn’t ride off the road if our transportation dept. got an make-over.

[Triforce on 27.03.06 at 16:12]

I think it would be great to have increased late night bus service including service to places where it currently shuts off before 8pm (like Spanish Pt, St Davids, Prospect, and the #1/3 routes), but again other factors have to be taken into account. Would the service actually get people to use the options? What would the effect be on taxi drivers? Is bus driver safety an issue?

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 17:59]

Like with most things the age old concept of "build the castle and they will come” pops into mind. Once people know they can count on the service, locals and tourist alike would use it, it would be common sense imo. As for the taxis should their pockets come in front of the greater good? Options decrease stress and in this case maybe even the stress created by so many bikes n cars could see a drop.

[SmokingGun on 27.03.06 at 18:14]

I think smaller buses that have loop routes working in sync with the ferries and major bus routes would be useful. Actually come to think of it, why not just get rid of the big buses and get twice as many half the size. Run them throughout the island 24 hours a day according to needs.

[stuart J Hayward on 27.03.06 at 18:58]

It may help to remember that the policy is steered by a lingering mindset (left over from the days of the oligarchs) that the bus and ferry services should pay for themselves. This was a philosophy that was infused into thinking about virtually all social services — that the provision by the government of public transport, healthcare, housing etc., was socialist in principle and would encourage indolence in the general public. I don't know why that kind of thinking has persisted but I suspect it hovers in the deeper regions of the Civil Service.

[ice_cube on 27.03.06 at 21:06]

SmokingGun - I really love the sound and image of that idea. What an island in transit we would be. While I was at it I’d even drop the fares to give people incentive to use the service.
Stuart how unfortunate it is the revamping needed has to go the depths of the mindset level. However the understanding that it's only logic that a working government would be willing to foot the bill so to say, or at least to some degree will more than likely have to come from such a place as old mindsets. How on earth do we get there? By what means can we help our leaders get it that it’s an imperative to invest in its people’s options movement?

[Michael Taylor on 27.03.06 at 23:38]

Stuart,

"It may help to remember that the policy is steered by a lingering mindset (left over from the days of the oligarchs) that the bus and ferry services should pay for themselves. This was a philosophy that was infused into thinking about virtually all social services — that the provision by the government of public transport, healthcare, housing etc., was socialist in principle and would encourage indolence in the general public."

I think that the government should subsidise these programs as necessary but we have to recognise that these provisions ARE socialist in principal. All modern democracies are blends somewhere on the spectrum between pure communism and pure capitalism and that's a good thing. Those holding the purse strings must be mindful of the indirect economic drawbacks of social spending. I think this is why that kind of midset remains, and not just in the civil service. The problem is when people take it too far either way.

All,

I think the way to keep this fair is to make sure the right people end up footing the bill. Our powerful love of the automobile is a large portion of the problem. Could this same force provide the solution? People seem to be willing to pay unbelievable amounts of money on their cars. Surely those causing the traffic problems should fund the solutions. Things like increased fuel taxes, licensing fees, bar concession taxes (why else do I need a bus at 4AM)and possibly tolls for rush hour driving could fund programmes like mandatory school bussing and full-coverage 24 hour public transport. Maybe these new revenues would not be enough and general taxes would need to be used to make up the difference. That's OK too, the general public would recieve the benefit after all.

[Triforce on 28.03.06 at 17:20]

Wow that's amazing. The mindset that buses should pay for themselves? Incredible. To think that I believed that essential services like public transportation should be available even if they run at a loss.

Shoot if they want to treat it like a private company they may as well have sold it.

Shouldn't the powers that be, be prepared to deal with a loss on the bottom line when it comes to essential services?

[SmokingGun on 28.03.06 at 17:37]

Socialist? One of the big added benefits of having more public transportation is that our people will get the chance to interact more. Be more social so to speak. If that's the case call me a socialist.