Road Warrior

Why ParkSmart doesn't want you backing into spots in its garages

I tend to get annoyed at people who seemingly can’t park between the stripes in a parking lot, and get some degree of satisfaction when the Downtown Toledo Parking Authority leaves a warning notice on their cars’ windshields urging them to straighten out.

 

I was a bit perturbed, therefore, when I returned to my car on a recent evening to find one of those notes pinned by one of my wipers. But it turned out to be related to a rule that, while I’ve seen posted in garages and parking lots elsewhere, seems unwritten in Toledo.

 

Checked was the box next to “DO NOT BACK into spaces. Rear of vehicle must face the drive-lane aisle.”

 

First things first: I didn’t back in. I pulled through from a space in the opposite row. But the reason behind the rule is not the chance that one might make other drivers wait while backing into a parking space, I learned when I called the parking authority for a what-for.

 

Nope, they don’t want vehicles facing out toward the access aisles because they want all vehicles facing the same way. Dan Fortinberry, the parking authority’s executive director, said it’s a fire-safety thing: should a parked car’s engine catch fire -- a rare event, but it does happen -- it’s desirable for other cars’ gas tanks to be as far away from the flames as possible.

 

He also said that, contrary to what you might think, a car exiting a parking spot front-wise, rather than backing out, is statistically more dangerous. That’s because drivers, on average, are less careful when they pull straight out from a parking spot than they are when backing.

I’d probably ask to see the numbers on that, but the fire-safety explanation is good enough for me. I’ll just hope that, by the time I get to the garage each evening, cars in the opposite row are already gone so I don’t have to back out -- which to me is definitely less safe than pulling forward, especially with the speeds some people drive in the Vistula garage when they’re going home.

Maybe it’s time for a radar trap in there, Mr. Fortinberry?

Gas prices bounce in metro Toledo

That far-below-$2 gasoline Toledo drivers have been enjoying in recent weeks is history -- at least for a little while.

Prices at many area filling stations shot up to just above $2 per gallon for regular today. I noticed it first on Woodville Road, where several stations had posted a new $2.099 price while others nearby were still around $1.699 to $1.719 per gallon at lunchtime.

The increase of as much as 40 to 50 cents per gallon will surely upset a few people, but even if every station in town went up to $2.099, Toledo's average price would still be below the $2.184 per gallon national average that Gasbuddy.com spotters reported as of suppertime today. Just one month ago, the average price in Toledo was $2.587 per gallon.

One of Gasbuddy's top analysts late last week predicted a price bounce like today's, too.

In other words, the $1.60-gas party is over, although if history is a guide, the streetcorner price battles will drive local prices back below $2 per gallon before too long. I don't expect a more sustained price increase to occur until early spring -- unless something goes sideways in the Middle East, of course.

Regulators propose new rules for highly flammable trains

Days before a hazardous-materials safety train visited the CSX Transportation railroad yard in Willard, Ohio, federal regulators announced proposed rules for the operation of “high-hazard flammable trains” like the unit trains of crude oil and ethanol that now rumble across northwest Ohio every day.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s proposal, defines such a high-hazard train as one carrying 20 or more tank-car loads of flammable liquids.

Such trains would be speed-limited to 40 miles per hour in all urban areas with populations exceeding 100,000 or deemed “high threat” by federal rule. They would be allowed to go 50 mph in rural areas only if their tank cars comply with new standards for tank-car construction that is proposed to apply to all cars built after Oct. 1, 2015. The standards govern such things as tank thickness, car-end puncture shielding (such as seen on the car shown here), the use of electronically controlled braking (as opposed to air brakes now typical in the railroad industry), and external fittings.

Older cars would have to either be retrofitted to comply with the new standards, repurposed for other commodities, or operated at reduced speeds for no more than five years in flammable-liquids service before being retired.

Issuance of the official Notice of Proposed Rule Making started a 60-day public-comment clock. Documents associated with the proposal can be seen here.

Railroads have hauled hazardous materials, including various petroleum products and other highly flammable liquids, for decades. Those shipments have attracted regulatory attention now, though, because of rapid growth in crude-oil traffic during the past five years thanks to the oil-drilling boom in North Dakota, which lacks the sort of extensive pipeline network developed during the 20th century to move oil north from the United States’ traditional oil patch in Texas and Oklahoma.

Many trains hauling that oil cross Ohio or, to a lesser degree, southern Michigan, as do trainload shipments of ethanol, which for the past decade or so has become a primary pollution-control additive to gasoline and is shipped by rail because of ethanol’s unsuitability for shipment in gasoline pipelines.

Trains of both kinds have been involved in a scattering of spectacular derailments, including an ethanol-train pileup near Arcadia, Ohio several years ago that injured nobody but required nearby homes’ evacuations for several days. Another ethanol train derailed at a washed-out bridge in Illinois, killing a motorist waiting at a nearby road crossing, while recent oil-train wrecks have caused large fires in North Dakota and Alabama and along the James River in Lynchburg, Va.

But most devastating was the runaway of an unattended oil train last year in Lac-Megantic, Que., that blew up after derailing in the center of the town’s business district, killing 47 people. Canada has since banned oil shipments in tank cars not compliant with design revisions implemented by tank-car manufacturers three years ago -- standards that are under consideration as an option in the U.S. federal rulemaking, too.

Publication of the proposed tank-car standards prompted comments from several quarters.

“Ohio has an extensive network of rail, water, and road options on which to transport products,” said U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio). “Because of that, local officials and first responders must be prepared to handle any situation that could endanger local residents. Once implemented, these new safety standards will help ensure more robust and up-to-date standards for railcars transporting hazardous and other materials across the state.”

The Greenbrier Companies, a major tank-car manufacturer, said it was pleased that two of three alternate new standards feature a shell of 9/16-inch thick steel, which Greenbrier has recommended in its own new design.

“Greenbrier is pleased that Secretary [of Transportation Anthony] Foxx recognizes the urgency of completing this rulemaking and we commend his stated intention to issue a rule in the next 60 days,” Greenbrier said in a prepared statement. “A final rule will provide the clarity the industry needs to make investments that ensure that crude oil and other flammable commodities are classified properly and transported in tank cars that are safer at any speed.”

The Railway Supply Institute Committee on Tank Cars also took a neutral stance, saying it will prepare and submit comments once it has reviewed the regulatory notices in detail.

But the American Petroleum Institute took exception to a passage in the Transportation Department’s announcement that described Bakken Shale oil as tending to be “more volatile and flammable than other crude oils.”

“The best science and data do not support recent speculation that crude oil from the Bakken presents greater than normal transportation risks,” API president Jack Gerard said. “Multiple studies have shown that Bakken crude is similar to other crudes. DOT needs to get this right and make sure that its regulations are grounded in facts and sound science, not speculation.”

Another airport that struggles to hold airline service

Toledo Express Airport isn't the only similarly situated airport to struggle with holding onto commercial air passenger service, and the airlines' patience with start-up routes -- even subsidized ones -- is short. Consider the example of Topeka, Kan., which is about to lose its only scheduled flights after just a nine-month startup period -- a startup that included nearly $2 million in revenue guarantees for United Airlines. Apparently their local travelers are happy to drive to Kansas City, even though K.C. is far from being a hub any more.

One would think that, being a state capital, Topeka wouldn't have this problem. Then again, air service at Capital City Airport in Lansing isn't exactly robust, though Michigan's seat of government has managed to hold onto three network-airline hubs via Delta, while Toledo has just American Eagle service to Chicago besides its less-than-daily vacationer flights to Florida.

Toledo officials also have a federal grant intended to subsidize a startup air service, but so far they haven't found any takers.

No more 'Thousand Islands'

There are going to be a lot of alternatives for drivers who don't want to deal with the I-75 reconstruction project that will soon start between Dorr Street and Central Avenue, as long as those drivers are willing to tolerate a few traffic lights.

People who work at -- or otherwise have to visit -- One Government Center or Toledo's courthouses should certainly consider using Greenbelt Parkway to get in and out of downtown, for example. And yes, that includes workers at and visitors to The Blade.

South Toledoans headed to I-75 in Michigan may also find driving through downtown Toledo and taking the Greenbelt to I-280 a more pleasant experience than driving through the work zone -- maybe even during rush hour.

Monroe Street should also be a popular choice, especially east of ProMedica Parkway, which is where I suspect a lot of drivers on eastbound I-475 will bail out when they encounter the big traffic backups this project is likely to cause.

But one option that isn't there is Collingwood Boulevard, and here's why: reconstruction of the "Thousand Islands" intersections at Cherry Street and Detroit Avenue is definitely in high gear. This view from I-75 a few days ago shows how both Collingwood and Detroit have been dug up since work to build two roundabouts there began last week.

Collingwood, the street on the left, will cease to exist north of Cherry as a result of this project. All traffic lights plainly visible in the picture will soon be gone. But to get this work done by early November, as planned, project planners decided to shut off Detroit and Collingwood entirely and restrict Cherry to a single inbound lane through the intersection.

The next 3-1/2 months are going to be an especially rough time to get through this part of Toledo. I don't envy the people whose regular commutes are affected.

Poof! The High Level Bridge is gone!

Among the many features of Rand McNally's annual road atlases is an indicator that certain sections of highway are expected to be under construction during a particular year.

Google Maps took a different tack for the construction work that recently closed the Anthony Wayne Bridge and is expected to keep it shut down until late next year: they removed it! Technically, you could argue they should have taken the stub bits of road out west of Oak and east of Broadway that are also closed, but that's a nitpick. And if you ask Google for directions between relevant parts of the East Side and downtown Toledo, it does give you a proper detour around the closing.

Of course, if you switch to satellite view, the bridge also known as the High Level is still there, and I'm hoping to get out there soon to tell you a little bit more about the work that's being done to renovate the 83-year-old structure.

Toledo snowier than Cleveland? It could still happen

Cleveland averages gets close to twice as much snow in a normal winter than Toledo does, 68.1 inches compared to 37.6 inches, thanks its position on the western reach of the Lake Erie Snow Belt. But the winter now winding down -- don’t look to me to say it’s over, it’s only April! -- could end as a dramatic exception to that rule, if Cleveland doesn’t get any late-season snow bursts like it got last weekend.

 

As of Friday, Toledo’s snowfall total since July 1 was a record shattering 85.3 inches, which smashes the old record from 1977-78 (73.1 inches) by more than a foot now! Cleveland’s winter-to-date total of 84.8 inches obviously is well above normal, but it only ranks seventh on that city’s list of snowiest winters. The 117.9-inch season record Cleveland set nine winters ago appears very safe unless April proves to be the most bizarro snow month ever. Cleveland’s snowiest April -- in 2005, imagine that -- produced “just” 19 inches.

 

How is it that Toledo leads Cleveland in snowfall this year? The main reason is a couple of the storms that produced major snows in Toledo this winter followed tracks that delivered a lot lessto Cleveland . In particular, Toledo’s 13-incher of Jan. 5-6 was mainly a rainmaker farther east, yielding just 0.9 inch of snow at Hopkins International Airport, Cleveland’s official reporting station. For all of January, Cleveland got just 23.7 inches of snow, compared with a record-busting 40.2 inches in Toledo.

 

Another factor is that the lake-effect snows were fairly tame this year in Cleveland. The early part of winter usually gives Cleveland a big head start on snowfall when cold air whistles across Lake Erie’s relatively warm waters and dumps the moisture it collects over northeast Ohio. But this time around, Cleveland got just 4.7 inches in November and 17.5 inches in December. That was still more than Toledo got during that time -- a combined 11.3 inches -- but not so much more that Toledo’s January storms couldn’t give the Glass City a healthy lead in this “race” to which it now clings.

 

Clings, I say, because Cleveland has been catching up ever since, with 23.8 inches in February to Toledo’s 21.6, and 15.1 in March to Toledo’s 11.8. Last weekend’s weather put the whole thing truly back in contention. While forecasters said Toledo might get a few inches out of the storm that passed through the lower Great Lakes a week ago, it ended up with next to nothing -- just 0.2 inch. One hundred miles to the east, though, Cleveland got 5 inches.

Maybe some of you would just as soon prefer to forget this winter once it’s over, but me, along with all the records we set and The Weather Channel’s declaration that Toledo’s winter was the worst in the entire United States compared to norms, “beating” Snowbelt City would add to this winter’s superlatives. Only three times since Toledo Express’ 1955 opening, which is as far back as the National Weather Service says its official snowfall records for Toledo go back, has Toledo gotten more snow in a winter than Cleveland, and the most recent was in 1969-70, when the “score” was Toledo 59.4, Cleveland 53.4. I’m not going to advocate for more snow here this, um, spring, but in any case, won’t you join me in doing whatever anti-snow dance or other superstitious foolishness you can think of to try to prevent more snow from falling this winter in Cleveland?

The snow record: Problem solved (mostly)

Shortly after I posted the last entry, the National Weather Service re-issued the Daily Climate Report for Toledo for Tuesday. It makes official the 0.8 inch of snow for the day at Toledo Express Airport, bringing the season-to-date to a record 73.5 inches.

What also shows up in the revision is a new precipitation total for the day: 0.06 inch, which is two-hundredths more than shown in the 12:45 a.m. version and also that much more than shown in the hourly weather reports at the airport.

So that's the solution to the issue that prompted me to question how much snow really fell Tuesday evening when the record was broken.

The whole affair doesn't leave me entirely confident in how these records are kept these days, but at least the numbers make sense now.

Toledo's Tuesday snowfall is "missing," and the record is in limbo

And now, the official snowfall for Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2014 at Toledo Express Airport is… missing.

 

So did Toledo set a season snowfall record Tuesday or not?

 

Officially, the National Weather Service now says it didn’t, although in the morning it said enough snow -- 0.4 inch -- had fallen at the airport to tie the 73.1-inch record from 1977-78, and more accumulating snow fell there during the evening.

 

But when I called the regional office in Cleveland at 10 p.m. to inquire how much snowfall the 0.01 inch of precipitation reported at the airport during the previous hour represented in terms of snow, they didn’t know.

 

They said they’d have the spotter at the airport go outside and check.

 

Fifteen minutes later, the response was "another 0.4 inch," which if accurate would have brought the season total to 73.5 inches.

 

But that would have had to be some darned fluffy snow to get four-tenths of an inch of it out of just a hundredth of an inch of water content. Think of it this way: if one goes by the old rule of thumb that it normally takes the same moisture to produce an inch of rain or a foot of snow, one inch of this particular precipitation would produce a whopping 40 inches of snow! (The 0.4 inch in the morning involved 0.03 inch of precip.)

 

So I didn’t buy that, and the folks in Cleveland said, “Well, it’s unofficial” and something more definitive would be posted after midnight, with the Daily Climate Report.

 

But the Daily Climate Report punted. It lists the snowfall for Tuesday as "Missing," and reverted the season-to-date total back to 72.7 inches -- what it was after Monday.

 

This is going to require a little further investigation, but for the time being, I’m going to start by blaming automation.

 

Two decades ago, the National Weather Service had its own staff at the Toledo Express Airport weather station and many other locations that have since been automated.

 

With automation, most of the information coming from the airport is self-reported by thermometers, anemometers, rain gauges, and other instruments. Cloud cover is determined by measuring brightness and sending a light beam up into the sky; if there are clouds below 12,000 feet, the beam bounces back. If the beam doesn’t bounce back but the sky cover is ambiguous, then the National Weather Service reports the weather as “fair,” which basically means only that there’s no precipitation.

 

Automated instruments, however, are very unreliable for measuring snowfall and snow cover. For the latter, the National Weather Service relies on the spotter -- apparently an airport employee who goes outdoors a couple of times a day and sticks a ruler in the ground at a spot or three that one presumes are sheltered from the effects of wind, so that they neither lose nor gain snow because of drifting.

 

New snow is supposed to be measured using a bare surface -- presumably one that is cleaned off after each measurement, and also is relatively immune to wind influence. But the National Weather Service’s backpedal Tuesday night on whether Toledo had even tied the record, much less beaten it, suggests that the readings taken out at Express on Tuesday weren’t reliable for some reason.

 

I'm not going to say the spotter did anything wrong, but I will say I'd have a whole lot more confidence in the measurements if they were being taken by a weather professional. And there’s been some other funny stuff going on with Toledo's snow data this winter, too.

 

There was at least one day out at Express when the snow amount on the ground exceeded the amount that had fallen. How’s that again?

 

And after January, when the crew in Cleveland added that month’s record 40.2-inch Toledo snowfall to the top of the Top 10 list for snowiest Januaries, somehow a bunch of the other Top 10 years’ numbers changed.

 

When I inquired about that latter phenomenon, some of those numbers were changed again, back to figures closer to what they were before, but not entirely. The explanation I got was that there was some sort of data-entry error -- but what data exactly needed to be entered for years long past? It still doesn’t quite make sense.

 

As for the most recent readings, what it would seem to come down to is that the snowfall amounts the National Weather Service officially logs at Toledo Express are fudged a bit -- and that therefore the official records aren’t as solid as one might expect them to be.

The fudge factor isn’t that great, and probably wouldn’t have been noticed at all had it not come into play on a day when a tenth of an inch of snow actually mattered -- at least, it mattered to people who wanted to know if Tuesday was the day that 2013-14 would officially become the snowiest in Toledo’s history.

The dark side of street repairs

It may be harder to get around if you live on an older Toledo street that the city hasn’t gotten plowed to bare pavement during this brutal winter, but there is an up side.

Your water pipe is less likely to freeze.

I’ve learned this one the hard way. Yep, I neglected to leave a faucet running at a trickle during our most recent bout of subzero cold, and one morning last week I woke up to dead faucets.

I hoped the problem might be attributable to one of several nearby water-main breaks, but no such luck. Yes, I’d rather have to boil water for a few days than be totally without for nine days -- and counting.

And several of the city water-division folks who have been over to my house since then have told me the same thing: living on a street the city recently rebuilt, right down to the dirt, and plows reasonably thoroughly is a disadvantage when it comes to keeping my water pipe insulated during extreme cold, especially since the main is on the far side of the street from my home.

When the city’s contractor dug down a foot or more into the ground to remove the old pavement a few summers ago, then laid down a compacted bed of gravel before paving the street anew with asphalt, that had the side effect of reducing the depth of earthen insulation protecting my and my neighbors’ water pipes.

The frost depth in most of the city, the utilities department’s Don Moline told me last week, is down to about 3½ feet, which by rule of thumb is the minimum depth you want for water pipes. But under well-built streets that are generally kept well-plowed, I learned Tuesday, the frost has gotten as deep as five feet -- plenty deep enough to lay a severe chill on pipes.

Scores of people’s pipes froze last week, and the water-division people who visited to diagnose mine told me a lot of them are on recently rebuilt streets. Indeed, they found the problem with my service line was beneath my street, not under my snow-covered front yard or in my amply heated basement.

That layer of fresh gravel beneath the pavement helps the street drain better, which means it should last longer and have fewer potholes in the future. But it also means cold penetrates it faster.

And just as snow on the ground helps protect flower bulbs and other hibernating plants from winter’s chill, so too does it keep the soil beneath a roadway just a little bit warmer than it otherwise would be.

This revelation may be too late to help anyone this winter; after all, the frost line is already deep. But keep this in mind in the future: if your street gets rebuilt down to the dirt, you may want to pay special attention to keeping a little water flowing through your pipes during a deep winter freeze.