Arn Salasky believes a bike trail can ultimately help cure what ails Ocean View. Randy Wright, the councilman, favors a multiuse trail on Pleasant Avenue.

What do you think of those proposals?

Arn has some other notions for Ocean View, too. Among them:

- Rename Ocean View Avenue "Ocean Drive."
The reason? "We have a PR problem in East Ocean View. People hear 'East Ocean View,' they say, 'I'm not going there.'"
He said East Beach and Wiloughby have already taken the lead in distancing themselves from Ocean View's longtime reputation.
"Anywhere you go on either coast has the most expensive homes and real estate on 'Ocean Drive.'"

- Rename the "senior center." "We're not seniors until we're sicko," Arn says.

- Allow golf carts to use the bike lanes he proposes.

- Have the proposed Ocean View trail link up to the Cape Henry Trail that runs parallel to Shore Drive in Virginia Beach, through First Landing State Park. That trail runs to the Oceanfront, ultimately linking to Rudee Inlet.

- Create an East Ocean View "town square," a shopping hub with restaurants and merchants.

- "Incent merchants, landlords and restauranteurs, developers, just like the council has done with the EBCH, Harbor View, Willoughby, Park Place, Broad Creek, Downtown and Ghent developers with the condo restaurant, hotel and office building land giveaways. We need to make available building waivers, tax incentives and rebates for redevelopment by landlords, relocation for businesses and make it attractive to do business, live and recreate in East Ocean View."

This photo, by Ray McDaniels, demonstrates the potentially dangerous mix of boaters and swimmers on the Chesapeake Bay. The photo was shot in Virginia Beach.

To make the image larger, just click on it.

What do you think?

Thursday, Sept. 13, The Warrior writes about access to the popular Red Mill Commons shopping center in Virginia Beach. What access issues - pedestrian or vehicular - do you encounter at area shopping centers?

Incidentally, Tuesday afternoon, Master Zachary Warren, 16 months old, accompanied me on his first Pilot Warrior outing(s). It's an experience his older sisters have endured on many occasions. The subject being access issues at Red Mill Commons, I asked Zachary what he thought of the sidewalk that ends with a curb, and he gave me the all-purpose "You got me" response - the upward-turned palm. Photo evidence is attached.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Zachary responds thusly anytime you ask him a question he cannot answer by pointing, i.e., "Where's your bottle?" and "Where's your nose?")

Tuesday, Sept. 10, The Warrior wrote about Jet Skis mingling with swmmers behind the Virginia Beach Resort Hotel and Conference Center.
It compelled reader Kenny Skees of Norfolk to write the following:

"I just read your article in today's Virginian Pilot about the jet ski rental situation at the Virginia Beach Resort Hotel.

Your comments about the typical jet ski rider were amusing.

I myself am 51 years old, with 3 kids and I own a jet ski and a boat, but I do not own a tank top and I quit smoking decades ago.

From my experience and research into the four stroke engine on my jet ski, and the two stroke outboard motor on my boat, I can assure you the two stroke boat motor is the bigger polluter of the two. The four stroke jet ski engine is as environmentally friendly as anything burning fuel on the water.
This is because of the latest technology in four stroke engines.

I'm not sure where you received the statistic about dumping 20% of their fuel in the water, but this is not correct. I think it is more like zero percent.

They are also as quiet as the two stroke outboard motors mounted on many recreational/fishing boats in the area.

The part about the reckless behavior by the riders may very well be accurate, but I think the U.S. Coast Guard statistics will show a greater percentage of accidents by recreational boaters over jet ski users."

This article, provided to me by reader and stormwater engineer June Barrett-McDaniels, details the pollution caused by two-stroke Jet Skis/personal watercraft:

Permitting Pollution
by Carolyn Chase
San Diego Earth Times

When having to select between ignorance, stupidity or corruption, I always try and opt for ignorance first. Give people the benefit of the doubt, I figure. But repeated exposure to political decision-making can test the mettle of the most compassionate observer.

In preparation for jet ski races seeking a special event permit in order to be held in Mission Bay this October, the City has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, but declined to hold any other hearings.

In the past, much smaller events have been brought before the Mission Bay Park Committee for discussion and approval, substantially prior to this point. Examples are the addition of drag boat racing to the Thunder Boat Races in 1997/98, the first Rock & Roll Marathon in the summer of 1998, and the annual reconsideration of the Hospitality Point summer concerts.

There are other, long established events which now do not return for annual approval, such as the Crew Classic and the Thunder Boats. All such events are expected to pay park use fees and a percentage of revenues into specified Mission Bay and/or City accounts, unless a waiver has been approved by Council. Again, this has usually required public hearings from the appropriate park subcommittee, up through the Park & Recreation Board, Council committee and then Council - none of which has taken place for this jet ski event.

When the question was raised at the June 1, 1999 Mission Bay Committee meeting about why this had not been brought before the Committee months before, the Chair responded that he had not considered it to be an event with sufficient impact on Fiesta Island and Mission Bay activities. However, an 8-day racing event and a total of 21 days of setup, racing, exhibits and takedown will have substantial impacts.

The two-stroke engines that power most jet skis run on a mixture of oil and gasoline. They discharge as much as one-third of this mixture - unburned - into the water. These machines burn from 8-12 gallons of gas per hour of operation. This event proposes to field as many as 750 jet skis, pumping thousands of gallons of raw fuel into the water. The fuel that is burned turns into air pollution.

The California Air Resources Board has reported that a two-hour ride on a 100-horsepower jet ski emits the same amount of pollution as driving 139,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car! The City's recently amended MND states "... the proposed 2,576 hours of jet ski operations would equate to a total of 36,800,000 vehicle miles over eight days (54% of a single day's existing miles [this is for the whole County by the way]). The percent increase during the eight days of racing seems substantial in relation to the daily baseline condition but, due to the temporary nature of the event, the increase is not significant over a longer term." Duh. Any effect is insignificant if averaged over a long enough term. That sentence actually makes me want to scream. Can anyone offer any outrage advice?

In addition, with respect to water pollution, it states, "The project would discharge 9,274 gallons of fuel into the bay in October, but this contribution would represent a 60% increase over September's current discharge rate. In other words, the discharge due to the event would be comparable to adding an additional two weeks of existing summer time discharges and this addition would occur after what is expected to be the peak summertime usage period." Their day-by-day estimates of the increases in discharges range from an increase of 67 to 455% per day. The City's conclusion? "Water quality impacts are not significant and no mitigation is required."

Hydrocarbons in gas and oil released from two-stroke motors float on the surface of the water and settle within the shallow ecosystems. These areas are home to many organisms at the base of the food chain: fish eggs, algae, shellfish, and zooplankton. Scientists have determined that hydrocarbon pollution can bioaccumulate within the complex food web and pose a threat to the marine environment.

According to Michigan State's Dr. John Giesy, one of the world's leading experts on the toxicological effects of marine hydrocarbon
pollution, the two-stroke emissions released into the water are up to 50,000 times more toxic under field conditions in the presence of the ultraviolet (UV) light in sunlight. This is due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), substances contained in petrochemicals that form highly toxic and persistent compounds known to be: 1. ubiquitous contaminants that bioconcentrate; 2. carcinogenic to mammals; and 3. acutely photo-toxic to aquatic organisms within minutes or hours.

Through controlled experiments, Dr. Giesy found that it takes .05 ppb (parts per billion) of PAHs in water to cause a ten percent decrease in zooplankton; as little as five ppb (parts per billion) killed all zooplankton in a thirty minute test period. Sampling has found PAH levels substantially in excess of five ppb during recreational boating activity. PAH's are considered so dangerous that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation now regulates PAHs on the same toxicity level as known cancer-causing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenols). Research demonstrates that chromosomal damage, reduced growth and high mortality rates of fish occur at extremely low levels of hydrocarbon pollution. Scientists believe that such pollution may bioaccumulate, degrading the surrounding environment.

The San Diego Basin Plan, which establishes narrative water quality standards for this area, states that "water shall not contain oils, greases, waxes or other materials in concentrations which results in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water," and "All water shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal or aquatic life."

Mission Bay is already listed as an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act. This means we already don't meet the state's water quality standards after full implementation of the state's existing permits. Mission Bay is already too polluted to support it's designated and existing uses. And Clean Water Act regulations prohibit new water discharges that will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards.

What is our city's response? The mitigation suggested for the water pollution impacts of this event in the MND is to "require locating drip pans under all watercraft in the pit areas."

Two-stroke engines are so bad that jet ski manufacturers recently settled a lawsuit brought by several California environmental groups. The settlement includes phasing out sales of two-stroke marine engines in the State of California.

I want to know why this industry doesn't step up and clean up its act. They have the tools, the technology and the money. What they evidently don't have is any sense of shame or responsibility for the byproducts of their fun and good fortunes. One jet skier was quoted saying, "It's too bad they're against it, it's so fun!" Well, no one is against the fun, and everyone should be against the pollution and the cheap practices that keep dirty technology in use. If we have to keep giving up our public parks for commercial enterprises, at the very least they should be clean ones.

The City now claims that it was just an oversight that the pollution outputs were overlooked in the original MND. They are issuing the permit and are evidently getting ready to defend the position that pouring thousands of gallons of pollutants into the air and water will be an insignificant impact. Dilution is their solution to pollution.

They will also not be holding any public hearings. For public input we must turn to the California Coastal Commission, who again will be facing that sensitive choice about submissions from the City of San Diego: ignorance, stupidity, or corruption. Some have suggested it's just plain greed. At this point, I have to wonder if they don't deserve some votes in all categories"

North End residents and beachgoers have widely varying points of view, as you might expect, where parking on "oceanside" streets is concerned.
Road's heard a lot of stories about extremes on both sides. There was the resident who deflated tourists' tires when they parked in front of her house. She then charged them $5 per tire to pump them back up.
One former North End resident told me he had "Fire Lane- Towing Zone" signs made by a local sign shop.
Do you sympathize with residents who don't want cars parked in front of their homes? Under what circumstances?

What are your experiences with our area's 911 service? Can you suggest improvements?

Reader Max Schram, who lives in the Atlantic Shores retirement community in Virginia Beach, wrote asking why there are few street addresses posted on businesses along Virginia Beach Boulevard.
"In New Jersey," he wrote, "everything that faces the street has to have a number. It's very annoying."

Rewind to an April 14, 2000 Warrior column:

Hey, Road: The lack of address numbers at business locations makes me crazy. If the numbers exist at all, they are on the storefronts and nearly unreadable.Whatever happened to the requirement for business owners to prominently display their address numbers? Store owners: Make your business easy to find!
Donna Thomas
Chesapeake

Dear Donna: The requirement is still there; always has been. A look at city codes reveals that Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake require that numbers be placed on the front of residential and commercial buildings, and that those numbers be visible from the street. Norfolk goes a baby step further, requiring that the numbers be at least 4 inches high. Road couldn't find any requirements in Portsmouth. So, at least for those three cities, it becomes a question of enforcement. That usually lies in the hands of zoning and fire departments. But how adamant are the cities about handing out citations? No one's going to admit they don't enforce city code. But we can guess that the enforcement threshold is pretty doggone high on this one, judging from the fact it's nearly impossible to find street addresses on commercial strips anymore. One would hope that good business sense would prevail, if nothing else.

What do you think?

Do you think bus shelters are a contributing factor to the low useage of mass transit?

What do you think, generally, it would take to get more people to use buses/mass transit? Or is it a hopeless cause?

My last bicycle was a 10-speed, purchased when i was 12 years old with the purpose of making me a more efficient carrier for the Olean Times-Herald.
That's until about two weeks ago, when I bought a shiny, new, black Raleigh bicycle.
Now, I'm getting some big ideas. I'd like to commute into work on my bike one day. Which doesn't sound like a big deal, until you consider I live in Suffolk, and work in Norfolk.
Crazy loves company. I'd like to get some others - especially those who haven't done it before - to ride into work with me that day, also (what day, I haven't decided yet).
If you have an interest in riding you bike to work one day, shoot me an e-mail message. I'll try and help you figure out the best route, and we'll report on our success, or lack thereof, after the fact.
Have a bike? Give it a try. Message me.

I recently wrote a column about some motor scooter users on the North End of Virginia Beach, who purportedly were blowing through by the access road that parallels Atlantic Avenue, ignoring stop signs in the process.
A couple weeks later, I was treated to a couple e-mails from the self-proclaimed "G-Ped Crew," including niceties such as "Screw U Man" and "Mind UR own business."
Note to scooter gangstas: When engaging in punkish behavior, DO NOT use your mother's e-mail account, partcularly if it has her name on it. And if that name corresponds to a North End listing in the phone book.
That gave the police what they needed to pay a social call to the "G-Ped Crew," during which I am told they arrived at "an understanding."