I consider the boardwalk to be a Newport Beach treasure. It’s a large sidewalk that stretches for about three miles, covering just over half the Balboa Peninsula, as highlighted on this map:

View Balboa Boardwalk & Safety Issues in a larger map

Hundreds of people make use of it each day for such purposes as:

• Leisurely walking strolls
• Jogging
• Running
• Leisurely bike rides
• Bicycling for exercise
• Inline skating (Rollerblading)
• Getting to Newport Beach Elementary school
• Walking dogs

So many uses — so many different means of transport — and with houses fronting nearly the entire stretch, as well as beachgoers crossing over, there are many safety concerns. These have culminated in changes from time to time. Last year, out of a new surge in concerns (see What Future For The Balboa Boardwalk?), the committee I’m part of was formed, to explore possible solutions.

Below, I’ll cover issues the boardwalk has, plus what’s been recommended and enacted so far. Hopefully those who live in or come to Newport will find it interesting. I hope it also helps other beach communities with similar boardwalks that may be considering their own changes. As I’ll explain, Newport’s not alone in its struggle, but there seems to be no statewide consensus on “best practices” for boardwalks of this type.

The Committee

I’m part of the “Oceanfront Safety Steering Committee,” which is made up of local residents and business owners. Specifically, we are:

• Mike Henn, committee chair & our local councilperson
• Dorothy Beek, an oceanfront resident
• Dale Head, a local business owner
• Laura Keane, a resident and representing the Central Newport Beach Community Association
• Bill Mais, an oceanfront resident
• Joe Reiss, a peninsula resident
• Danny Sullivan, a peninsula resident

We’ve also has city representatives regularly taking part, including Newport Beach police Captain Dale Johnson, Brad Sommers of Public Works and city public information manager Tara Finnigan.

At the end of April, we issued an initial report to the city with our findings, which you can read here.

Issues

We’re hardly united in our specific views. Some would like to see no bicycles on the boardwalk. Some would like to see skateboards allowed again. But I have to say, being on the committee has been an education about understanding consensus and compromise and trying to come up with solutions for the common good. Not that there have been any huge fights! Instead, various issues have been examined, and then the committee has made recommendations that we’re all largely behind, because the seem to make the most sense.

Onward to the issues.

Pedestrians

How could pedestrians be an issue? As someone who rarely walks on the boardwalk (I either rollerblade or bike), I can assure you, they are (see some comments here, as well). The boardwalk is a multi-use pathway. That means it is shared by pedestrians and those on wheels alike. Pedestrians are an issue primarily when they fail to be aware of their surroundings. They often:

• Walk against opposing traffic
• Walk dogs on long leashes, where the dogs cross into opposing traffic
• Walk onto the boardwalk without looking for traffic

Opposing traffic? The boardwalk is divided in two, like a roadway. Traffic (pedestrians & bicyclists alike) move in opposite direction, each direction staying to the right:

Now consider this picture:

Just before I shot it, as I approached when skating, the brown dog at the front was actually sniffing along the walls on the left side of the boardwalk. That mean the leash stretched across the entire area that I (or anyone else) needed to go in order to pass this group.

Or consider this picture:

Here, a woman is walking against traffic. There’s a small girl out in the sand playing — this is probably a mother and daughter, and you can understand her naturally wanting to stay close to her child. But it also poses a conflict to anyone approaching. Is she going to move into the sand? Will she suddenly look up, see you coming and decide to move in your path? And while in this picture the boardwalk is fairly empty, it’s not uncommon at all to have it be fairly crowded with groups of people walking the wrong way.

Then there’s this picture:

Here, three pedestrians take up the entire boardwalk — and this is at a section where the boardwalk is at its widest.

Bicycles

Just like pedestrians, bicyclists can also go the wrong way or take up the entire boardwalk by riding side-by-side. However, the biggest issue of concern is that of speed.

Some people on racing bikes and speed down the boardwalk, posing a hazard to pedestrians and other bicyclists. Even at slow speeds, there’s still a problem that you have many small children who can suddenly dart from behind patio walls.

Consider this:

OK, I know the picture is at an angle, but hopefully you’ll see what I mean to illustrate. Most of the homes along the boardwalk have patio walls with small gates. Small children often can’t be seen behind these walls until they step out onto the boardwalk — and then, hopefully, you’ve stopped in time.

The same is true when you come to where streets meet the boardwalk. Kids come off of these streets, often running in excitement to reach the beach, and they’re hidden from view until it’s almost too late. Any parent who regularly takes their kids to the peninsula will warn them to look out. But kids will be kids — they aren’t going to look, making high speeds on bikes so very dangerous.

Segways

Powered vehicles of any type are not allowed on the boardwalk, with the exception of personal mobility devices (such wheelchairs). So what’s up with Segways? Technically, a Segway rider is classified (I believe) under state law as a pedestrian.

That’s still not gone down well with some residents, who view the Segways as too big or too powerful for the boardwalk. It’s especially a concern when you have groups of many Segway riders all in a row:

They’re seen by some as taking up too much space to get around or, if they’re going around someone, creating conflicts.

Surreys

If you’ve been to Newport, you’ve probably seen surreys, even if you don’t know that’s what they’re called. They’re like four wheeled bikes that can fit four, six or eight passengers:

Surreys have apparently been banned from the boardwalk for years. That hasn’t stopped people renting them from taking them out on it. Objections range from surreys being too heavy (if they hit someone, potentially they’ll cause more injury than a bike), to them taking up too much space (especially on a crowded weekend, they can clog traffic), to them being a magnet for people who get out of control (it’s not uncommon to see them overloaded with people with people who’ve had too much to drink).

Rollerbladers & Inline Skaters

This is me! And fortunately, there haven’t been too many rollerblading concerns voiced. Some rollerbladers can go to fast (mmm, that’s probably me, but I watch it more now).

Skateboards & Scooters

Banned from the boardwalk for ages, the concern here is that skateboarders might lose control of their skateboards either when skating along or if doing tricks.

Unlike skateboards, scooters like Razor scooters are allowed — but not if they are powered.

Powered Vehicles (Electric Bikes, Scooters, etc.)

Powered vehicles, as I’ve noted, are banned from the boardwalk unless they are Segways or personal mobility devices. Despite this, you’ll still see everything from powered motor scooters to an increasing amount of electric bikes. Concerns about being on the boardwalk primarily come down to speed. But some of the electric bikes also can be quite heavy, thus increasing the potential of injury. FYI, electric bikes are banned even if you don’t use their motors. If they’re capable of being powered, they can’t be taken onto the boardwalk.

Immediate Solutions

Those are the primary issues facing the boardwalk. How do you improve things? Everything from widening the boardwalk to separating bikes from pedestrians has been considered. The committee has taken a go slow, incremental approach to fixes. Rather than expensive reconstruction, can things be made safer by changing habits and enforcing existing laws?

Enforcement Events

The first solution has been to schedule a series of “saturation patrol enforcement events,” where the police and volunteer police explorers are out in force, to remind everyone of the rules. The first was held at the end of May. The second was supposed to have happened last weekend, though I didn’t see much presence when I went out in the morning. Two more events will happen during the summer.

During the events, you had flyers being distributed at various points along the boardwalk:

People were also instructed to walk their bikes in the McFadden Square “walk zone.” And, there were these high-tech speed reminders:

That’s right — radar units measuring the speed of bikes. And of rollerbladers, if they have any amount of metal (like a phone) that can reflect radar (they worked on me).

Overall, I and the other committee members felt the first event went well. People did seem to go a bit slower in the following weeks. There were fewer surreys out on the boardwalk. After years of no enforcement, it seemed an appropriate ramp up to raise awareness (the police didn’t give out tickets, though they could have, since this was an initial “reminder” event).

Aside from the saturation events, the police are supposed to have bike teams out on the boardwalk with more frequency. There’s also a nighttime enforcement event in the works to deter drinking and biking. From 10pm onwards on a weekend, it’s not uncommon to find people spilling out of bars, onto bikes and then onto the boardwalk as they fall over unable to bike. By the way, my understanding is that the legal limit for drunk biking is much lower than for driving a car.

Radar Trailers

Those radar units I mentioned? They’ve continued being put out on the boardwalk in various locations outside of enforcement events. The main downside to them is occasionally you get the opposite effect — some people speed up to see how fast they can go. The committee recognizes this, but the consensus is that they’re doing more good overall.

Could you really get a ticket for exceeding the 8 mph speed limit on the boardwalk? No, to my understanding. The actual speed limit itself is apparently unenforceable. Your bike’s not equipped with speedometer, for one thing — no law requires this.

Don’t take that as carte blanche to ignore the signs. You can get a ticket instead for “unsafe operation,” which can be a police officer deciding you’re going too fast for the conditions. That could mean going too fast even under the 8 mph posted limit.

Personally, I’d rather see the 8 mph signs scrapped and this “basic speed law” put in place as a warning. On a quiet evening, allowing bikes and skaters to go faster seems safe. The conditions allow it. But the signs probably do serve as a good deterrent for unsafe speed overall.

Crackdown On Surreys

A consequence of the first enforcement action was a sudden drop in people who were willing to rent surreys and take them out on the boardwalk. As I’ve said, they’ve been banned for years. Some surreys even have signs in the surreys themselves saying this:

With business down, shops renting the surreys have been lobbying for them want them to be allowed back on. The Daily Pilot has a good article on the upset and business loss, with a follow-up commentary from committee member and surrey shop owner Dale Head here. Head also maintains a petition in his shop for those who want the ban lifted.

Another shop owner, Debbie Rodgers of Balboa Bikes N Beach Stuff (no site, but Google Maps listing here) came to a committee meeting two weeks ago with pretty heartwrenching plea for the ban to be reversed, because of the impact it’s having on her business during her busiest period.

Personally, I’d like to see a way for a small number of surreys at a time to be accommodated. I think it’s nice that people from out of town (those who almost exclusively rent the surreys) can use the vehicles. Not everyone can ride a bike, and it does look like a lot of fun to take something like this out along the sand. Limit the numbers, and perhaps you eliminate the congestion issue that happens when there are many of them on the boardwalk all at once. There are also different size surreys. The smaller four-seater ones have less opposition from the committee, overall.

Still, I can’t see how these can be allowed to operate during busy weekend or holiday periods. Frankly, there’s sometimes barely enough room for the bikes and pedestrians already out there:

That picture above isn’t even showing the boardwalk at its worst on a busy weekend, trust me.

It’s also not in the committee’s power to reverse the ban. That’s a city law — it’s the city council that would have to reverse it. The committee simply recommended that there be better enforcement of the existing laws. Even if enforcement hadn’t been stepped up, anyone renting the surreys was always at risk of getting a ticket. And as Capt. Johnson explained at the last meeting, the police can’t say they won’t enforce a particular law.

Hopefully, the owners will find alternative routes for those wanting to rent surreys to take. Apparently, many are now taking streets and alleys down further on the Balboa Peninsula to its point and the famed “Wedge” bodysurfing spot. In turn, that has Peninsula Point residents unhappy. Of course, they also don’t deal with what those further up from the point face — a boardwalk directly in front of their property.

Crackdown On Motorized Bikes & Scooters

As I said, there’s been an increase in motorized bikes, scooters and other motorized devices on the boardwalk — and more places locally appearing to rent these. As with surreys, there’s already a ban against motorized vehicles on the boardwalk. Use them, and it’s increasingly likely you’ll get a ticket. Build a business around them, and its increasingly likely you’ll run into the problem surrey shop owners are currently facing.

The Segway Exception

As I said, Segways are allowed. To boot them from the boardwalk, the city would have to pass a local ordinance.

Personally, I think it’s incredibly confusing that they are allowed. Why on earth would you think an electric bike shouldn’t be allowed if you’re seeing electric Segways scooting up and down the boardwalk?

The local Segway shop has done an excellent job of lobbying that they shouldn’t be banned. Problems, we’re told, are due mostly to out-of-town tour groups that come into the city. The local shop says it runs carefully controlled tours. And during a city study session that was held, about three or four local residents that own Segways also spoke against any possible ban.

Right now, the committee recommendation is for the city to explore requiring any Segway tours on the boardwalk to have a city business license and perhaps agree to certain safety considerations. That seems a reasonable next step. Still, I remain concerned that allowing them sends the wrong signal. But I’m waiting to see how some new signage that’s coming might change things. Ultimately, the Segways could find themselves banned, too.

Weird Vehicles

Objections to the vehicles above being on the boardwalk tend to center around the size or weight of them. That produces counter arguments. Segways are smaller in some ways than bikes allowed on the boardwalk. A surrey can take up as much room as two bike riding side-by-side, and that’s not banned.

And what about things like these:

The first is a pretty awesome non-electric bike, but it’s pretty heavy. Should that be banned? The second is a seated bike that takes up plenty of space like a surrey. But that’s allowed? And what about people towing trailers with kids? Should those go?

Certainly some consistency in why some vehicles are allowed and some are banned would make sense — and that’s a tough job when there are so many different types of unpowered vehicles out there. But this is a topic the committee has yet to tackle.

Skateboards

As I said, they’ve long been banned. I’d like to see that lifted. I’d rather see skateboard tricks banned, but not skateboards used for transportation. I regularly see both kids and adults using skateboards as a means from going between Point A and Point B. Sometimes they’re carrying groceries, body boards or surfboards — not things you’d expect from those trying to do tricks. But I don’t have a good argument against the situation that a board could go out of control and perhaps run into someone or under a bike, other than that anything can go out of control.

Immediate Structural Changes

So far, I’ve covered issues with vehicles. How about changes to the boardwalk itself. Some are being tested; some have been considered but would require more money and significant changes.

New Signs

The boardwalk has existing signs with the posted speed limit and vehicles not allowed. These will likely be upgraded, especially to somehow note that Segways are an exception to the powered vehicle ban. Meanwhile, new “message” signs like these examples are being considered:

New Striping

Currently between 8th and 9th streets (this is marked on the map), new striping is being tested. Instead of a dashed yellow line, a solid one has been painted:

Does this mean you can’t pass someone? No. On a regular road, you can’t cross a solid yellow line like this. On the boardwalk, the lines don’t have a legal meaning.

The new striping isn’t meant to preventing passing movements. Instead, it’s designed to discourage some people from swerving through the dashed lines as if they were a virtual slalom course. It’s also to see if it helps encourage people to stick to their side of the boardwalk when not passing.

At the street-side entrance to the boardwalk, there are also new yellow lines painted to warn pedestrians:

I don’t know how effective these really will be. It’s also being considered striping the entire area where streets intersect with the boardwalk, to highlight that many pedestrians will be crossing.

Long-Term Structural Changes

New signs and new striping can be done quickly and with little expense (less than $20,000, the report estimated). Beyond that, there are other changes that have been considered.

Widen The Boardwalk

From the report:

The committee reviewed the suggestion to slightly widen the boardwalk and agreed that a wider boardwalk does not equal a safer boardwalk. Many felt that it would encourage cyclists to go faster and pedestrians to spread out further. Public Works estimates that adding an additional two feet of width to the current boardwalk would cost approximately $1.5 million. Widening it by five feet would cost approximately $2.6 million. These estimates do not include the cost of additional street lights, underground conduit, etc.

I still think this will need to be considered. Perhaps the boardwalk can be widened between streets to have passing areas. That wouldn’t require the removal of light posts, though the merge back to a narrower path might cause conflicts. Still, it can get very crowded, and some widening might help without producing the “speedway” effect that some worry about.

Separate Bike Path

From the report:

The Police Department spoke to cities that have separate paths for bikes and pedestrians. Many report that the separation has created a new problem. They now have a raceway for bikes, unhindered by slow-moving pedestrians. In addition to this concern, the committee did not relish the idea of placing more concrete on the beach and staff believes the Coastal Commission will object to this idea as well.

I’d love to see this. But I’m not sure how well it would work. For one thing, check out LA Times columnist Steve Lopez’s article about the Santa Monica bike path (supposed to be here, but the wrong story currently loads. The Times tells me they’re fixing it, so read it here for now). Rather than the raceway issue, the bigger problem is pedestrians ignoring the bikes-only signs.

If a separate path were built in Newport, pedestrians would still have to cross it to reach the beach. A lot of engineering could be done to pipe them to particular crossing points — perhaps walls put up to prevent conflicts — and that’s likely more expense than it’s worth.

Speed Bumps Or Traffic Calming

From the report:

The committee considered “traffic calming” devices such as rippled concrete to slow down cyclists. Public Works could not find any devices that are currently used for this purpose and the idea raises safety concerns related to rollerblading, roller skating and pedestrians.

McFadden Square Walk Zone

At the base of Newport Beach Pier is McFadden Square, also known as McFadden Plaza. Officially this is a walk zone for bikes and skates (how skates are supposed to walk, I don’t know).

Yeah, I know the picture’s kind of funky. I moved my iPhone when shooting it. But you can see a painted sign on the ground saying no bikes, as well as the “Walk Bikes” sign. Despite this, people routinely bike through the area:

Perhaps the enforcement campaigns will help encourage obeying the walk zone. Personally, I wonder if “Walk When Crowded” signs would be a better solution. It’s pretty weird to walk your bike when there’s no one around, which is often the case outside the weekends. And since many people don’t, that gives the impression that you don’t have to walk at all. But maybe encouraging walking when it makes sense would get more compliances.

Parking Lot Madness

The boardwalk gets divided by the parking lot at Newport Beach Pier. Bicyclists get deliberately routed like this:

Into traffic like this:

It’s terrible. Even worse, during the school year, is where kids are being routed as they ride to Newport Beach Elementary school. Hopefully the city will figure a dedicated path that allows bikes to continue on without having to dodge cars like this.

The Southern Stop Signs

At the sound end of the boardwalk (some saw the east end), there’s a series of four stop signs:

View Balboa Boardwalk & Safety Issues in a larger map

Personally, I’d like to see these removed for those on the boardwalk. Pedestrians, to my understanding, don’t have to obey them. They’re not motor vehicles. I’m not sure rollerbladers have to. Certainly neither group does. And if you’re a bicyclist, it’s odd to then be required to stop when others are already crossing and stopping traffic (if it’s there) for you.

But the signs represent some of the most dangerous spots on the boardwalk. That’s because cars often ignore the signs. If you’re not watching out, you could get hit. That’s why I’m hoping that speed bumps could be added either at the limit lines for these signs or just before, to slow cars down.

Extending The Boardwalk

Personally, I’d like to see the boardwalk be extended to run the length of the Balboa Peninsula. That’s a hot political potato. Those with houses not fronted by the boardwalk won’t want it coming through (even though the city still owns the right of way, to my knowledge).

In the north, I wonder if it could be extended in a compromise — not running it directly in front of homes but offset a few feet away, perhaps even further out where the beach gets wider.

There’s a safety aspect to this. The boardwalk ends at 36th Street:

The people get routed into Oceanfront Drive, like this:

You have two way bike traffic, with bikes on the right side (as in the picture directly above) then riding directly against car traffic to their right. And on the left, you cars backing out of garages only inches away from bicyclists — many of them kids. It’s not safe at all.

Conclusion

That’s it, my rundown on the current situation. I’d love to hear from others, so please, leave your comments below.

I saw the LA Times tweet a short write-up about how local TV station KTLA was going to do a story on this and went looking for more. KTLA’s story is here, but the Harbor Patrol has their own blog post about what happened, complete with video:

Apparently two deputies coaxed a sea lion that had tried to attack a boy onto their boat, in order to take it out to sea. On the way, the boat started going crazy. Lights flashed, it lurched to one side and someone seemed to be steering it from elsewhere.

That was the sea lion, which had gotten into another steering area used during foul weather. They eventually regained control, got back to a dock, and the sea lion eventually left the boat.

The Log also has a story with a few more details.

NOTE: Now that the 4th has passed, I’ve posted some video clips to give you a sense of the day. Much of the information below is also applicable to next year and Newport in general.

This Newport Beach 4th Of July video shows how things were in the day:

This Newport Beach July 4 video shows how things were in the evening (complete with cheesy music courtesy of my Flip video’s camera software):

Getting Here

Other than by water, there are only two ways to reach the Balboa Peninsula. You come down either Balboa Boulevard or Newport Boulevard. On a busy weekend, either is crowded. On the 4th of July, they’ll be a nightmare — and one will be partially closed.

The map below (in orange) shows how Balboa Blvd will be shut down to vehicles from Noon on the 4th through “early morning hours” on the 5th, says the Newport Beach Police Department:
View Newport Beach 4th Of July Street Closures in a larger map

Also closed (and shown on the map in orange) are all the numbered streets within what’s commonly known to locals as “The Party Zone” and Seashore Drive. Residents are “recommended” not to try and leave or enter the area with their vehicles and will be “prevented” should they attempt to do so, except for rare exceptions based on “emergency need.”

Heck, I’m not even in the closure area, but I’m not planning to try and drive anywhere. The peninsula’s going to be heaving.

The main route into Balboa will be Newport Blvd, as I’ve also shown on the map with a green arrow. Getting even to that entrance point is tough. Many people come down the 55 Freeway, which can backup for a mile or two easy, where the freeway ends. I’ve shown this on the map below in red (this is the same map as above, and further down, just zoomed out):
View Newport Beach 4th Of July Street Closures in a larger map

Right alongside the freeway is the northern part of Newport Blvd. You can exit onto the street and get past the freeway backup, but eventually you’ll still end up at the same choke point. Harbor Blvd is often a better alternative. Still, when you get to the “Triangle Square” area shown in blue, you’re going to face delays. The early you leave in the morning, the less congestion you’ll face. I’m talking 7 or 8am.

Parking

Made it onto the peninsula? Now you’ve got to park. Parking on a regular summer weekend is hard enough. For the 4th Of July? Well, good luck.

The city operates a variety of lots, the largest being at the Newport Beach pier and then an even bigger one at the Balboa Pier. Expect that the Newport Pier lot will fill quickly. Getting into the line to cruise that lot can easily waste an hour of your time. Balboa has more space, but it will also fill quickly. There’s also street parking, both metered (yes, even on holidays) and in neighborhoods. Spaces will be at a premium, especially as many residents will move cars out of their garages so that visitors coming down have a place to park. As with everything, the earlier you arrive, the better. You’ll find an interactive map of city parking area here, and more info on rates here.

In addition to city parking, various store owners and places with vacant lots will sell spaces. You’ll find these as you travel down Newport Blvd. I can’t find a list of such places anywhere, much less a way to make reservations. Expect to pay $50 or much more upward. Apparently, some private residents might also sell their garage spaces for a day through Craigslist.

Public Transport

How about a shuttle service? Yeah, we don’t have that in Newport, for the Fourth. There’s no Park-n-Ride or anything similar that the city offers. You can take the bus, of course. OCTA routes 71 and 47 run down to the peninsula. Route 47 can’t go the normal distance, however, as it runs into the street closure area. Route 71 goes all the way down to the Balboa Pier area, but you can expect it will get stalled in traffic often on the way. Still, you could always park your car outside Newport, say in many places in Costa Mesa along the bus routes, then take them further down. You’ll find the routes and schedules here on the OCTA site.

Necessities

Assuming you make it, you’ll find plenty of stores ready to sell you whatever you forgot. There’s an Albertson’s supermarket on 32nd St — a Vons Pavillions just across the street from that — plus any number of smaller businesses near both the Newport Beach and Balboa piers. You can get everything from food to drink to sunscreen to beach umbrellas.

What To Do?

Ready to celebrate? There’s plenty of beach, and even on the busiest days, there seems to always be a spot for people. The beach is extremely wide north of 54th Street — which is also north of the party zone. It’s also very wide between the Newport and Balboa piers. Around 15th Street (marked on the map), you have an oasis of bathrooms, a grassy area bordered by a playground, plus a cafe and a small market.

Down by the Balboa Pier, you have tons of places to eat, the big Peninsula Park, the nearby Balboa Fun Zone with arcade games, boat rentals, places to eat. By Newport Pier, many more businesses and an endless supply of bars. You’ll find some of these places I’ve mentioned marked on the map:
View Newport Beach 4th Of July Street Closures in a larger map

Speaking of bars, Malarky’s has typically done a 4th of July bike parade down the Balboa Boardwalk. I’m assuming that’s on again. I should have more details to post tomorrow.

If you like parades, there’s also the “Old Glory Boat Parade 2009″ happening, sponsored by the American Legion Yacht Club. It starts around 1pm and goes around the entire inner harbor, so there are plenty of places to watch it at. You can find the route map and more info here.

There’s also an official city parade, but that’s happening off the peninsula. It runs in conjunction with a carnival at Mariners Park. The parade starts at 9:15am at the corner of Mariners Drive and Santiago. Unfortunately, the exact route isn’t listed on the backing group’s web site. But there is more information about the carnival there.

Back to bikes, there are plenty of places to rent them, but expect the boardwalk to be extremely crowded. There are a number of safety measures that have been stepped up in recent weeks (see Making The Balboa Boardwalk Safer). Just keep a close eye on any kids and remember traffic moves in both ways on the boardwalk. Be aware of your surroundings.

Fireworks Viewing

What’s the Fourth Of July without fireworks? Newport Beach — because they’re not allowed. Neighboring Costa Mesa sells them, but bring them into Newport, and you risk an expensive ticket.

Well, how about a public display? Typically, none have been visible from the beach-side of the peninsula. And to see them looking inland, you’ve normally had to be on a rooftop deck.

The closest public display will be at Newport Dunes, lighting off at 9pm, the city says. I’ve marked the area on the map.

Up at neighboring Huntington Beach, the city’s got three days of celebrations happening, a parade, a festival — maybe I should move! You’ll find more info here. I mention Huntington because at 9pm, the city will shoot fireworks off the end of its pier, according to the city. Those may be viewable from the beach side of Balboa. Sadly, Newport doesn’t do the same off either of its two piers. Maybe some day.

The map below marks locations of both fireworks displays with stars:
View Newport Beach 4th Of July Street Closures in a larger map

Party! (And Potentially Get Arrested!)

Naturally, people will be coming to Newport to party. And party hard, as tradition goes. Hence Newport’s “Safely Enhancement Zone,” which runs from 12:01am on July 4th through 3am July 5. This covers much of West Newport and allows the police to issue tickets at triple the normal fine amount. I’ve shown the area on the map (that lighter orange-yellowish color that encloses the road closure area):
View Newport Beach 4th Of July Street Closures in a larger map

You’ll know you’re in the area in part because of all the big signs they’ve put up, that my wife’s blogged about in her 4th July in Newport Beach post:

You’ll especially know you’re in a heavily patrolled area because, well, there are 200 police from Newport, the California Highway Patrol and elsewhere in Orange County that will be walking around (4 per block, the police say, in some parts of Balboa). And they’ll easily spot troublemakers in some area because of huge floodlights that have been installed, to turn the night into day. Pretty much, the same areas closed to traffic — the party zone — will be the area most heavily policed.

Don’t mess with the police. Seriously, don’t even joke with them. After two run-ins with Newport cops (one on a traffic stop, the other with an officer who ran a stop sign and objected to being questioned about it), I’ve found they have a serious attitude problem even in situations when they’re not particularly stressed. But hey, maybe I’ve just encountered two bad apples. Nevertheless, the 4th is a “target rich” environment where people are going to be seriously getting out of control — and the police will have a hell of a job trying to keep order. Do anything remotely wrong, and there’s  a good chance you’ll get ticketed or arrested.

Avoiding Trouble

NBPD notes that last year, 83% of those getting tickets were from out of the area with the biggest problems being:

Drinking in public, public intoxication, fighting, uncontrolled parties, possession of fireworks and igniting them in public. Fireworks are illegal to possess in the City of Newport Beach despite their sale in nearby cities.

The police also have a flyer they’ve given out to some residents and that I’ve seen posted in a few stores. You can read the entire thing here (PDF), but the key highlights, for those wanting to stay out of trouble:

POSSESSION OR USE OF ALL FIREWORKS IS ILLEGAL IN NEWPORT BEACH

This includes “safe and sane” fireworks such as fountains and sparklers that can be purchased in other cities.

DRINKING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC IS PROHIBITED

Possessing or drinking alcoholic beverages on streets, sidewalks, beaches, piers, or other public areas is prohibited. Violators may be cited or arrested.

TRIPLE FINE FOR LOUD OR RAUCOUS PARTIES

Property owners and/or party hosts are responsible for the conduct of their guests. Loud and raucous parties that require a police response can result in an enforcement action that can include a citation or arrest for those present and fines for both property owners and tenants.

WATER BALLOONS, SQUIRT GUNS, GARDEN HOSES

Throwing water balloons or spraying water at pedestrians or vehicles is illegal. Violators are subject to citation or arrest.

There’s also this advice for those having parties:

• Limit the number of guests you invite. Don’t allow strangers to attend uninvited… As the host, you are ultimately responsible for everyone’s conduct while they are attending your party.
• Possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages or consumption of those beverages in public is illegal! Please ensure that no alcoholic beverages leave your property. You are also responsible for ensuring that no minors are consuming alcoholic beverages while at your party.
• Please limit noise and raucous behavior! Keep your stereo volume low and all speakers should remain indoors. Throwing water balloons or spraying water at pedestrians or vehicles is strictly prohibited.
• There will be street closures and severe traffic congestion in the area. In order to prevent inconvenience to your guests, ask them to limit their travel in and out of the West Newport Area.
• Be courteous to your neighbors (as they may be working the next morning), and take your party indoors after dark. Close your doors and windows to prevent loud voices and stereo sound from disturbing them.
• Keep your outdoor lights on — it helps all of us deter criminal activity.

I’m pretty sure the prohibition on alcohol in public does NOT apply to drinking in public on your own property. IE, virtually every house in Newport has a patio where people, not surprisingly, will drink on holidays and on other occasions. Drinking on your own property should be fine (if I can confirm that, I’ll update). But be aware that especially on the boardwalk, it’s very easy to spill out from private property and into a public area. Sitting on a small patio wall with your legs hanging on the “boardwalk” side of a house is probably being in public. Or people who’ve had a lot to drink simply don’t think, walk outside a patio area and boom — that’s a fine waiting to happen.

Newport Beach & Twitter

I’m a big Twitter user, and I expect we’ll have a few others heading to Balboa for the 4th. Want to Twitter your experiences? Just end them with the hashtag of:

#nb4th

Then anyone can track what’s going on in the area, relating to the 4th.

That’s pretty much it. Questions? Leave a comment, and I’ll answer as best I can or seek out further information. Also for some further info on Newport, places to eat, things to see, check out some of my other posts:

• Pita Pit Opens In Newport Beach
• Rollerblading Along The Newport Beach Boardwalk
• The Piers Of Newport Beach Vs. The Pier Of The OC
• The Characters Of The Balboa Peninsula

I’d like to quote exactly what he said, the key part in bold, which was:

Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.

Unfortunately, as you can see from his proposal, if paraphrasing isn’t allowed, I certainly don’t expect I’d be allowed to actually quote specific material, even if doing some might fall under existing fair use provisions. His writings are naturally protected by copyright in the United States and thus verboten.

Paraphrasing is certainly out, so with the new law, it would be difficult for me to even express succinctly what he’s talking about.

To even point at his exact piece here could result in a lawsuit.

Ironically, Posner’s proposed law will cripple the very newspaper industry he thinks he’s protecting. Unable to use search engines, they’ll be unable to research many of the stories Posner says we all depend on. Unable to paraphase, many of the papers will not be able to report on major events they don’t personally cover (if they don’t personally get confirmation of Michael Jackson’s death, each and everyone one of them, paraphrasing from where they heard the news would be illegal).

And forget the online world. Newspapers and others commonly paraphrase copyrighted materials under fair use provisions. With that tossed out, there will be a further degradation of information sharing (unless we’re talking another special rules law for the offline world, like that Washington State tax break for print papers).

Meanwhile, attention is renewed on the idea from a few weeks ago that laws should be changed facts in stories couldn’t be reported for 24 hours. So the next time someone like Michael Jackson dies, whoever breaks that news — everyone else can just sit back and watch, lest they be accused of unfairly profiting off another person’s “original” reporting. And won’t that fuel good journalism — increasing further the rush to be first.

You know, I don’t think we should have a court system with lawyers and judges and juries all that. I think we should have a panel of experts appointed in various areas of case law. These experts, because they are experts, won’t need to be “educated” about the situation of certain cases. They won’t be a jury easily swayed by court theatrics. It should result in better law.

If that sounds crazy, like I’m writing about how the court system works with no real experience of it, let me introduce you to some people who write about newspapers, journalism and how information works on the internet. They have some crazy laws of their own.

For more, see discussion on Techmeme here and here.

Then I read more closely. The price is “starting at” $25 per year. As best I can tell, you’re paying $25 each time you want to fast track through a line. $25 per pop! United will give you a rebate on only one of these.

If you’re a Clear member and flying United in a place they offer these, I guess it’s worth the hassle. Just send a photocopy of your card, not the actual card. United will take either but the photocopy portion isn’t prominently mentioned. Really, United — you want to be collecting these cards full of biometric data?

Meanwhile, Clear has posted an update to their web site that says data has been destroyed but interestingly, they’re not in bankruptcy:

Clear Lanes Are No Longer Available.

At 11:00 p.m. PST on June 22, 2009, Clear ceased operations. Clear’s parent company, Verified Identity Pass, Inc., was unable to negotiate an agreement with its senior creditor to continue operations. Verified Identity Pass regrets that Clear will not be able to continue operations.

How is Clear securing personal information?

Clear stands by our commitment to protect our customer’s personally identifiable information – including fingerprints, iris images, photos, names, addresses, credit card numbers and other personal information provided to us - and to keep the privacy promises that we have made. Information is secured in accordance with the Transportation Security Administration’s Security, Privacy and Compliance Standards.

How is Clear securing any information at the airports?

Each hard disk at the airport, including the enrollment and verification kiosks, has now been wiped clean of all data and software. The triple wipe process we used automatically and completely overwrites the contents of the entire disk, including the operating system, the data and the file structure. This process also prevents or thoroughly hinders all known techniques of hard disk forensic analysis.

How is Clear securing any information in central databases and corporate systems?

Lockheed Martin is the lead systems integrator for Clear, and is currently working with Verified Identity Pass, Inc. to ensure an orderly shutdown as the program closes. As Verified Identity Pass, Inc. and the Transportation Security Administration work through this process, Lockheed Martin remains committed to protecting the privacy of individuals’ personal information provided for the Clear Registered Traveler program. Lockheed’s work will also remain consistent with the Transportation Security Administration’s federal requirements and the enhanced security and privacy requirements of Verified Identity Pass, Inc.

The computers that Verified Identity Pass, Inc. assigned to its former corporate employees are being wiped using the same process described for computers at the airports.

Will personally identifiable information be sold?

The personally identifiable information that customers provided to Clear may not be used for any purpose other than a Registered Traveler program operated by a Transportation Security Administration authorized service provider. Any new service provider would need to maintain personally identifiable information in accordance with the Transportation Security Administration’s privacy and security requirements for Registered Traveler programs. If the information is not used for a Registered Traveler program, it will be deleted.

How will members be notified when information is deleted?

Clear intends to notify members in a final email message when the information is deleted.

Who is monitoring this process?

Clear is communicating with TSA, airport and airline sponsors, and subcontractors, to ensure that the security of the information and systems is maintained throughout the closure process. Clear thanks these partners for their continuing cooperation and diligence.

How can I contact Clear?

Please visit our website, www.flyclear.com, for the latest updates. Clear’s call center and customer support email service are no longer available.

Will I receive a refund for membership in Clear?

At the present time, Verified Identity Pass, Inc. cannot issue refunds due to the company’s financial condition.

Has Verified Identity Pass, Inc. filed for bankruptcy?

At the present time, Verified Identity Pass has not commenced any proceedings under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

And the TSA still has nothing to say. For more background, see my past post, TSA Stays Silent As Its Registered Traveler Program Melts Down

Why do we continue to hear such tiresome rhetoric? Well, the Associated Press has quieted down, which makes me think they’re getting closer to a deal they like with Google. With the Wall Street Journal yapping again (owner Rupert Murdoch and editor-in-chief Robert Thomson spoke out against Google in April), I assume they’re probably having talks with Google — or trying to get those going — and figure more posturing would be helpful.

The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press carry enough weight — are arguably “must carry” publications — that they’ll probably land some Google cash, in the end. And Google won’t call it pay off money, when it happens. We’ll get a euphemism about the deals being done for “new” or “different” uses rather than the “right” to list links.

Other papers and organizations, which struggle much more than the WSJ or the AP, won’t get anything. That’s why I don’t think Google should do such deals secretly. More on that in my Open Letter To Google & The AP: Reveal The Licensing Terms article.

As for Hinton’s remarks, if Google’s a vampire, here’s some free garlic that will keep it away. Go over to your robots.txt file here and add these lines:

User-agent: Googlebot

Disallow: /

All done. Heck, there’s even a Google help page with these instructions. Weird vampire, to be pointing at garlic like that.

Do that, and all your content is out of Google. Google might still see links that point to it, so important articles will still have some listings in web search. But you’ve pretty much pulled the plug on Google. Staked the vampire. What’s are you waiting for?

More discussion on Techmeme, which includes an article on how Steven Brill’s Journalism Online hopes to save newspapers. Because his Clear airport security pass program worked out so well, closing abruptly this week.

Oh, that article on Journalism Online is from the AP, which will probably die after 30 days because the AP doesn’t understand SEO. So here’s one that will likely live longer.

And for past writings on newspapers, which cover many of these issues, see my newspapers category. I especially recommend Do Newspapers Owe Google “Fair Share” Fees For Researching Stories?. Trust me, plenty of reporters at Dow Jones publications are sucking that Google vampire right back when creating the articles that Google supposedly puts its fangs into.

Clear Airport Security Program Closes Abruptly; Goodbye Flo, Too? has all the news from yesterday. If you need more details for some of the things I cover in this new post, I suggest checking out that story as well.

In that post, I mentioned that there were two competitors to Clear still standing: Flo and Preferred Traveler. The Flo site still makes it seem like it serves nearly 20 airports. In reality, it only covered this many because anyone with a Flo card could also use Clear. Flo actually only has its own machine in Reno. Preferred Traveler has its own machines in Jacksonville and Louisville. Both companies have to honor each others’ cards and, as I’ll explain more, are still to honor Clear cards. In short, the entire “Registered Traveler” network now boils down to three airports in total:

• Jacksonville
• Louisville
• Reno

With a vast selection like that, I can’t see why many people would go through the expense and hassle of signing up unless they fly from one of those three specific airports. And given that, you have to wonder if the entire Registered Traveler program backed by the US government is now going to die a sudden death.

Well good, those snooty people paying to get to the front of the line deserve what they get. I’ve seen this comment a number of times, and I’ll do a future post addressing the realities of what Clear provided as well as the mess that continues with airport security lines in general. But for now, more of the immediate postmortem.

Over at Airports Council International - North America — a group that “represents local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in the United States and Canada” — there’s a summary of a meeting that was held today where Clear updated airports in on the current situation (and in more depth than it has updated its own paying members). It’s good reading. The PDF is here, but somehow I was also emailed a copy:

ACI-NA

Security Notice

Re: Registered Traveler Update

Date: June 23, 2009

Today, TSA held a conference call with industry associations to discuss Clear’s cessation of Registered Traveler (RT) operations yesterday. Joe Corrao, TSA Registered Traveler Program Manager hosted the call to allow Clear representatives an opportunity to speak to the private sector. Verified Identity Pass (Clear’s Parent Company) Acting CEO, Jim Maroney, General Counsel, Charles Bennett and Chief Technology and Security Officer, Jason Slibeck participated on the call to answer questions.

Jim Maroney reiterated that Clear ceased operations as the company was unable to negotiate funding from its creditor. A statement to that effect has been posted the Clear Web site www.flyclear.com.

As the result of questions about the privacy of data, Maroney stated that all applicant and member personal information will continue to be secured in accordance with TSA requirements but is in the process of being deleted under the direction of company officials. Clear has a plan to secure and delete personal information in three areas:

1. Enrollment – Clear is using G-Band to secure software and data on kiosks
2. Lap tops – Clear is bringing all employee lap top computers to its office in New York so data can be removed
3. Central System – Once it has worked with the Sponsoring Entities (airports and airlines), Clear will ensure that data is removed from the central system located at Lockheed Martin’s facilities in Orlando and Palm Coast.

Clear requested that airports provide access to its equipment so that it can remove the data. Although airports can move Clear equipment, local program managers will need access to it and to electrical power in order to remove the data. Clear is working with its program managers to ensure that all keys, ID badges and other property is returned to airports. Due to its financial condition, Verified cannot provide refunds to its members. Customers with questions should be directed to the Clear Web site or they can contact Jason Slibeck via email at jslibeck@verifiedidpass.com.

At this point, the TSA Registered Traveler Program Office has no intention of placing Clear cardholders on the card revocation list (CRL). Therefore, Clear customers will be able to use Flo and Vigilant Systems Registered Traveler lines at the remaining three airports: Jacksonville, Louisville and Reno.

However, TSA stated a decision was reached this morning that Clear cards will no longer be an acceptable form of identification to gain access to security checkpoints. Further, the Office of Security Operations (OSO) plans to provide guidance to FSDs later today directing Travel Document Checkers (TDCs) not to accept Clear Registered Traveler cards from passengers.

OK, let me translate some of this plus highlight the additional questions it raises.

First, all that data that Clear has on people is apparently going to be destroyed. Good, but…

Second, the TSA is saying apparently that the Clear cards remain valid as part of the Registered Traveler system (so Flo and Preferred Traveler have to honor them at their three combined airports). But…

Third, if the Clear data is being destroyed, how do Flo and Preferred Traveler know anything to validate? Or do they have their own copies of a complete Registered Traveler database that the TSA maintains?

Fourth, that thing about Clear cards not being acceptable ID? Some Clear cards contained pictures (older ones did not, and Clear never seems to have mailed out new ones with pictures to those with old cards — like me). The TSA was apparently honoring the picture ID Clear cards as a government ID, so you didn’t need to show a Clear card and your driver’s license or other photo ID when doing security. Now, you’ll need to do that again — if you use the Registered Traveler checkpoints at one of the remaining three airports.

And what’s all this Registered Traveler business? My past post, CLEAR Registered Traveler System To Improve; Airport Security Competitors Coming!, has some background on the program the TSA oversees that allowed private companies to speed the security process. Or really, not clearing actual security but speed you to the front of the security line.

Which brings me to …. where the hell is the TSA in all this? I’m learning from some airport group that the TSA has made decisions, but the TSA site, the TSA blog, the TSA Twitter account and the TSA page about the Registered Traveler program all say nothing. Nada. Unacceptable. TSA oversees this program. It’s in disarray. At least one company appears to be misrepresenting how wide the network is. Let’s have some oversight and communication.

On to some fresh news accounts:

Airport security fast-track firm’s shutdown leaves customers without refunds from the Salt Lake Tribune notes the confusing situation where Flo lists Salt Lake as an airport it serves but airport authorities have no idea if Flo will take over the existing Clear setup. I doubt it — that equipment doesn’t belong to Flo. We also get this statement from the TSA (Wired and CQ got similar one):

TSA has no comment on Verified Identity Pass’ announcement. The Clear program was a market-driven, private-sector venture, offered in partnership with airports and airlines in certain locations,” TSA spokesman Nico Melendez said in an e-mail.

Um, no. The TSA has press releases about: the launch of the Registered Traveler pilot program (here); the initial $28 fee that the TSA collected from each registrant (here) as part of the program “facilitated by the federal government;” the elimination of that fee after it became clear the TSA would not let people pass through the actual security screening faster plus clearance for the RT program to expand to more airports (here) and its temporary suspension of new Clear registrations after Clear lost (and later found) a laptop containing registration information (here). But sure, this was all a pure private-sector thing that — when it collapsed in a big way — was no longer something the TSA felt it needed to mention to the public in general, much less comment on to the press.

Right.

As I said, I’ll come back to a future post of what Clear did do (got you through the security wait quickly in a dependable manner) and didn’t do (get you through the metal detector and x-ray scanner faster). While not having the latter was a disappointment, both USA Today and CQ have examples about how the former really helped.

Personally, that dependability was a huge boon for me as a regular business traveler. If the private sector solutions are going, I certainly hope the airports figure out a more consistent and dependable way for all travelers to know the typical wait time and where to go (the “expert traveler” etc. lanes aren’t a good solution; on the fairness front, if Clear was seen as unfair by some, then what’s up with the special frequent flyer / first class lines).

The Clear airport security program has abruptly closed. No warning, and no information beyond a sparse statement on the Clear web site. An email to members also went out about an hour ago with the same short statement on the site.

Clear, or Fly Clear as it was sometimes known, allowed people to bypass regular security at some airports for an annual fee. I’ve been a regular user since it started. In fact, I was probably one of the program’s most successful affiliates. I’d written about it from an early point, and so many people used my code to get an extra month (and giving me one in the process) that my card was good through 2064.

Poof. Now all that credit is apparently gone. And so is any time left on cards for people who bought the 2, 3, 5 or 10 year options that Clear recently promoted. From my post about that (Fly Clear Airport Security Pass Prices Go Up, But New Ways To Save Offered), I’d warned last November:

The main issue to me about a 3 year or longer period is that Clear itself isn’t guaranteed to exist that long. So far, they seem to be expanding and doing well. They probably will be around for 3-5 years. But in 10 years, who knows how airport security is going to change — and $1,190 is a lot to gamble on that.

I guess even expecting 3 to 5 years was too optimistic.

It’s amazing — rather appalling really — that nothing remains up on the site for those who were members of the program. How much time did you have left on your card? Will you get any refund (given the credit problems, I doubt it).

Clear also ran a special affiliate program for selected “Refer-A-Friend” members paying $20 for each referral between November 17 and December 17, 2008. I don’t think I had any referrals that qualified during that period, but others might. If they weren’t paid (it can take months for a referral to count, as this only happens when the new person’s enrollment is complete), some people might be owed money.

Of course, the bigger issue is for all those travelers who as of 11pm Pacific time tonight will find that Clear lanes have closed down. Apparently, airports offering the Clear lanes also had no previous notice.

It’s pretty disappointing. I’d hope that someone is able to step in and perhaps pick up where Clear left off. After a rocky start (see my post below comparing Clear to a system in the UK), I found the machines became more dependable. It was certainly a relief for me to use Clear when I’d be flying out of airports that offered it, such as San Jose.

A side note, especially of interest to my readers who also keep up on my commentary about newspapers. Clear was started by Steve Brill, who abandoned the company in March. Brill’s latest venture, Journalism Online (site here), aims to help newspapers weather the current economic storms they face (see Time For Google To Fund An Online-Only Version Of The Pulitzers? for more). I have to say, with Brill’s previous company Clear in disarray, I’m not feeling too optimistic about how his journalism enterprise will go.

For some past history from me on Clear and background about the company, see these posts (in chronological order, oldest to newest):

• Passport Fast Track: UK’s IRIS Easily Beats US’s Clear
  
• Clear: US Security System Launches Affiliate Program
• Using CLEAR To Clear Airport Security — This Is Efficient?
• FlyClear Discount Code Benefits Everyone!
• CLEAR Registered Traveler System To Improve; Airport Security Competitors Coming!
• Fly Clear Airport Security Pass Prices Go Up, But New Ways To Save Offered

As for the Clear site, all you’ll find there currently is this:

Clear Lanes Are No Longer Available.

At 11:00 p.m. PST on June 22, 2009, Clear will cease operations. Clear’s parent company, Verified Identity Pass, Inc. has been unable to negotiate an agreement with its senior creditor to continue operations.

Here’s an image of the home page:

News coverage is pretty sparse so far, but here are a few articles with more:

Un-Clear: Registered Traveler Company Shuts Down: From the Wall St. Journal, says Clear had over 150,000 members. The second largest company, Flo, now becomes number one. There’s currently nothing on the Flo site offering any suggestion of taking over the Clear network. Flo serves just over 15 airports. Clear served just over 20. The list is still available in Google’s cached copy. That will go soon, so here’s a copy for historical purposes.

I’ve noted where Flo also operates and bolded the places where only Clear was operating. At some of these airports, I’ve never seen Flo actually in operation (though I’ve hardly been looking for them, of course). SEE POSTSCRIPT BELOW — FLO DOESN’T HAVE TERMINALS IN THESE PLACES BUT INSTEAD WAS PIGGYBACKING ON CLEAR.

• Albany (Flo operates here)
• Atlanta (Flo operates here)
• Boston Terminal A (Flo says it’s coming here)
• Cincinnati (Flo operates here)
• Denver (Flo operates here)
• Indianapolis (Flo operates here)
• Jacksonville (Flo operates here)
• Little Rock (Flo operates here)
• Louisville (Flo says it’s coming here)
• Newark-Terminals B1, B2 (Flo says it’s coming here)
• New York-JFK -Terminals 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 (Flo says it’s coming here)
• New York-LaGuardia -Central Terminal B, Terminal D (Flo says it’s coming here)
• Oakland (Flo operates here, I’ve never seen them, though)
• Orlando (Flo operates here)
• Reno-Tahoe (Flo operates here)
• Salt Lake City (Flo operates here)
• San Francisco (Flo operates here, I’ve never seen them, though)
• San Jose (Flo operates here, I’ve never seen them, though)
• Washington-Dulles (Flo operates here)
• Washington-Reagan (Flo operates here)
• Westchester (Flo operates here)

Registered Traveler flier-pass vendor Clear shuts down: From the Los Angeles Times, has little more than the Wall St. Journal but says Clear claimed to have nearly 250,000 members.

Via MousePlanet, Clear Shuts Down Registered Traveler Lanes from Aviation Week notes that at least one airport, Orlando International, didn’t get notice of the closure until this afternoon.

Ironically, Clear still appears to be running ads on Google soliciting sign-ups, though clicking on them brings you to the Clear home page saying the program has closed.

As of only a few days ago (June 18), the company also emailed members with a special enrollment offer to buy a year and get a free $30 Brooks Brothers gift card. Email subject line: “Reminder: There’s still time - Dad deserves 5 star service (and a new tie).” So much for that gift for dad, and kind of sucky to be pushing new enrollment when the company had to know it was days from closing down.

I’ll postscript more news, as I get it. If you’re considering Flo and can wait, I’d hold on a few days. It seems likely they’ll make some type of special enticement to bring in Clear members or better, that they’ll perhaps obtain Clear’s assets. Plus, it’s probably worthwhile waiting until the inevitable analysis happens of just how healthy Flo itself is, before plunking down more money.

Photo credit for opening image: I modified this image from RustyBrick in violation of its stated copyright guidelines. But since RustyBrick is also Barry Schwartz, my news editor over at Search Engine Land, I think he’ll forgive me).

Postscript: More coverage…

Steve Brill’s Clear Card Gets Grounded: from AllThingsD, covers the $116 million in investment that Clear raised since 2005, including $44 million less than a year ago.

Clear traveler program shuts down: From the Denver Post, mainly says if you hit the Clear booth at Denver, you’ll get directed to special lines for frequent flyers who qualify for other express treatment.

Clear lanes to shut down at Hartsfield-Jackson: From the Atlanta Business Chronicle, cites Atlanta airport officials saying that new, non-premium security lines have reduced security times for anyone to below 10 minutes, on average, perhaps making the use of Clear less essential. I’ve certainly seen that on occasion at San Jose, where using Clear didn’t save me much time at all. But on other occasions, it was a life saver. More than anything, it made my security time dependable. I knew I’d always be able to get through quickly, rather than the crap-shoot you sometimes encounter at an airport.

CLEAR Airport Verified Identity Pass calls it Quits: From ZDNet, touches on the mishap where a laptop with Clear data about 30,000 Clear members went missing. It was eventually found, I believe, but when some people were already sensitive about how much data that Clear gathered (see Chris Sacca’s Not So Clear For Me post), it didn’t help the company’s prospects.

Postscript 2

TSA’s Registered Traveler program grounded: From USA Today has further background and statement that Brill was surprised that an agreement couldn’t be reached with creditors.

Security firm calls it quits at the SLC airport: From the Salt Lake Tribune says that airport got the news of the closure over this weekend.

Clear, aka the “TSA fast pass,” shuts down: From Boing Boing, touches on the privacy issues. Also covers this being Brill’s second “turkey.” Though in bowling terms, he’ll need the new journalism company to tank to have scored a true turkey. Lots of comments starting on the Boing Boing post, too.

Boing Boing’s post prompted me to look at the privacy policy (PDF file) to see what it says about the data if Clear closes or is sold. I don’t see either case being covered. At best, you get this:

A. We do not sell or give lists or compilations of the personal information of our members or applicants to any business or non-profit organization. We do not provide member or applicant personal information to any affiliated or non-affiliated organizations for marketing.

B. None of the information that we collect may be used for any purpose outside the operation and maintenance of the Clear Services.

C. We would only disclose personal information about members or applicants if required to do so by law or legal process.

I assume if someone buys Clear’s assets, they’d get the information. But would that be seen as “selling” the information? If so, then perhaps this would violate the privacy policy and so wouldn’t be allowed (or would happen despite it — or perhaps members would be allowed to voluntarily transfer their information over).

Postscript 3: In the bad timing department, Digg cofounder Kevin Rose just got into the program. He tweeted:

This sucks!, I get approved 4 Clear ($200): http://yfrog.com/b5g2hp - & the same day they declare bankruptcy: http://digg.com/u16Ryx

Postscript 4: Clear Card Aiport Security Program Clears Out: From KTVU, says Clear employed 50-60 people at San Francisco Airport alone.

I’m also waiting to hear back from Flo and hopefully I’ll have some news to add directly from them.

Postscript 5 (Noon, PT, June 23, 2009):

Per Vincent’s comment below, it turns out that Flo doesn’t actually have its own terminals in many of the places it lists on its web site. Instead, if you look closely, it calls the places it operates “Registered Traveler” airports — Registered Traveler being the US government program that licensed companies like Clear and Flo to operate. Basically, Flo appears to have been sending its members into Clear lanes. Now that those Clear lanes are gone, Flo may have few or no lanes of its own. Indeed, the Flo site consistently talks about “Registered Traveler” airports rather than “Flo” airports, a clever (or sneaky) way of making the program appear to be more stable than it actually is. I get the impression that the death of Clear means that Flo will have problems shortly — certainly there’s no compelling reason to purchase from them, that I can see. I still haven’t heard back from Flo itself, other than an email I sent yesterday was being reviewed by upper management.

On the Flo home page, there is now this statement:

On June 22nd our competitor and fellow Registered Traveler Service Provider, Verified Identity Pass (also known as Clear), announced immediate cessation of operations at all of their airports. Flo is currently working with other participants in the industry as well as the Transportation Security Administration to analyze the implications of this announcement and to formulate a plan for the advancement of the program. We have no additional comment at this time but would expect to release further information pending a public statement from the TSA.

Um, if Flo depends on Clear terminals, I’d sure expect a better update than that. As for the TSA, I see nothing about the closure of Clear so far, nor on the official TSA blog.

Meanwhile, more news. CLEAR registered travelers will not be refunded from USA Today covers a new notice on the Clear web site (more below) and highlights that Vigilant, which runs a Clear-style program called Preferred Traveler, plans to maintain its locations in Jacksonville and Louisville. It also notes that Clear cards will be accepted in these locations. But it’s disappointing to read on the Preferred Traveler site this statement:

Be assured, that while we are interoperable with all Clear lanes, we are not Clear and will continue to operate. We will continue to accept Clear cards in both Jacksonville and Louisville. We are working on gathering information and are having discussions with other industry members and will provide you information as we receive it

“Interoperable” with all Clear lanes sounds great except for the fact that those lanes themselves aren’t operating. Nice spin.

USA Today also says that Flo will continue to operate its own lane in Reno — so that might be the only place where Flo operates on its own. Which in turn means:

• Reno
• Jacksonville
• Louisville

Are the only places with terminals that can accept cards from any Registered Traveler program company, Flo, Vigiliant and perhaps Clear cards still being honored. See you in Reno!

Fast-pass security lanes at San Jose, other airports close down from the San Jose Mercury News covers how the first ever airport to get a Clear lane — San Jose — only got a few hours notice that the program was closing.

CLEAR Update: What Happens to Your Personal Data, Comment From Steve Brill from the Wall Street Journal covers the data question, that it’s apparently being held by Lockheed Martin and can only be claimed by the TSA. Maybe, says former CEO Steve Brill — since he’s not there anymore, even he’s not certain if terms have changed. Story also suggests seeking a credit card refund — I’d definitely try this, for anyone who was recently charged.

If you want a refund from Clear, good luck. Or so says the company in a new message on its web site, along with brief info on the data question:

What will happen to my personal information?

Applicant and Member data is currently secured in accordance with the Transportation Security Administration’s Security, Privacy and Compliance Standards. Verified Identity Pass, Inc.  will continue to secure such information and will take appropriate steps to delete the information.

Will I receive a refund for membership in Clear?

At the present time, because of its financial condition, Verified Identity Pass, Inc. cannot issue refunds.

Overall, what a mess. Are Clear cards valid in some other places? If so, shouldn’t Clear tell people not to do stupid things like destroy them? I’d definitely like to see someone from the TSA get moving on help sorting out the situation, as they ultimately oversee these programs.

Postscript 6: See the continuation of this story, TSA Stays Silent As Its Registered Traveler Program Melts Down. I’ve also closed comments here, so they future ones can be part of the most current post on this topic.

Finally, OS3 for the iPhone is out — and against my better judgment, I decided I wanted copy-and-paste now. So I did the iPhone 3.0 upgrade, and now my phone is dead. Like many others, I’m getting the dreaded “unknown error” message. And looking to Apple for guidance, I come away feeling frustrated.

After my upgrade was done, my phone was left with an icon message to plug it into iTunes and only able to make emergency calls. As for iTunes, it gave the message screenshotted above, which says:

We could not complete your iTunes Store Request. An unknown error occurred (-4).

There was an error in the iTunes Store. Please try again later.

Shortly after getting this, I saw Matt Cutts tweet that I wasn’t alone. Hundreds on Twitter — more like thousands at this point — were tweeting about similar problems. Try searches for itunes store request or unknown error, and you’ll see them.

You also see a lot of sad, frustrated and sometimes angry people getting no help. People are tweeting uncertain if they’ve “bricked” their phone and made it unusable. People are looking for help.

And Apple? It’s not helping. I tried a search on the iPhone support site for “unknown error occurred (-4)” and got nothing useful.

I checked the iPhone support page and found nothing alerting people that Apple’s aware of the problem.

I checked the iPhone discussion group and got an amazing “We’ll be back soon” message.

I’ve just gone back, and at least now there’s  a thread on the topic. Supposedly it’s here, but if you try to read it, you get — yep — an error message and taken to this holding page.

Way to fail, Apple.

If you have news on how to solve the problem, please post below. I’ll also update as I learn more. For related discussion on the new software and the iPhone 3Gs launch, see Techmeme. Also see an upgrade cluster on Techmeme here.

Postscript: Flash Gordy suggested I try plugging directly into my computer rather than a hub. Did that, and problem solved. Or maybe whatever network issues with the iTunes store were happening got sorted out.

I could have dived in and done yet another dissection of things I disagreed with, but I figured what the heck. I’ll write to Tim and see if I can get a conversation going.

It’s been over a week and counting. No word. Maybe my email hit his spam filter (twice, because I sent a follow-up yesterday). Maybe he’s just not interested (and that’s fine — I don’t follow up on everything I get). Maybe I didn’t get the email address correct. But since I’d written a response to him, I figured I might as well put it out for anyone trying to balance what he wrote with another perspective. As a bonus, you can get my shorter letter that I wrote to the LA Times after my letter to Tim. That never made it in print, either.

===

Hi Tim–

I’ve been covering the search engine space for the past 13 years. It’s my beat. Previously, I worked as a journalist for the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register. So I read your column with interest – as I have this entire latest saga of “newspapers versus the search engines” – as the two worlds I know well collide.

You’d written:

“The problem is that newspapers can’t begin charging for online content or licensing their journalism to search engines unless all the English-speaking papers do it at once. That’s currently illegal under laws barring collusion and price-fixing.”

This seems to be the heart of your argument. With respect, it’s a faulty premise. I’d be happy to explain more to you about why this is not the case. I think your readers and people in general deserve a deeper look at the actual issues involved rather than this scapegoating of search engines, and of Google in particular, that many execs in the newspaper industry have been doing to make up for – in my view – their more than a decade-long failure to adjust to the online world.

I’ve written a number of pieces on this issue. More than any other, I’d encourage you to read this one:

• Google’s Love For Newspapers & How Little They Appreciate It

Especially at the end, you’ll see where I talk about the First Click Free program that Google’s long run. Many papers already participate in this program. They charge for their content yet also make that content available to search engines.

The fundamental problem is simply that this isn’t enough for some. The AP in particular seems to believe that the mere act of listing headlines of their stories and summarizing them is something that should be worth a license. Through the threat of a lawsuit, they effectively gained a licensing agreement from Google. We’re waiting to see if Google’s going to blink again. These get into more depth about that:

• Do Newspapers Owe Google “Fair Share” Fees For Researching Stories?
• Open Letter To Google & The AP: Reveal The Licensing Terms

Any newspaper that wants to pull out of Google or other search engines can do so right now. It’s a simple solution, a line or two in a “robots.txt” file to make it happen. They don’t need to have secret meetings to do this. I agree, if they all don’t agree to do it at once, some of them might decide to cash in on the traffic the others would lose. But there’s no guarantee at all that if they did pull out, that Google would someone decide to cough up some newspaper bailout money.

Just ask the Belgians:

• Belgian Papers Back In Google; Begin Using Standards For Blocking

Unhappy about being listed in Google News, rather than block from being included (an easy, no-need-to-sue solution), the papers actually sued to be excluded. The goal was to effectively blackmail Google into listing them through a licensing agreement. Google declined. The papers were dropped. The Belgians won their case (though it might still be in appeals), but they still came crawling back because in the end, they wanted the traffic.

Many major newspapers actively court traffic from Google, including your own (you have a person dedicated to doing nothing but getting you more traffic – Brent Payne). The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal have similar people (both of whom I know personally). The newspaper executives trying to rally a fight against Google as boogeyman rarely if ever mention that they still want this traffic and how they go after it.

You also need to understand that it is not just Google News. Every paper gets traffic from regular Google web searches. While the newspaper industry feels it is so important, providing such a vital function to society that it should get special privileges, general web search depends on the inclusion of all types of content. There are plenty of other sites that provide journalism not to mention the information journalists at newspapers depend on. If they also demanded some special treatment, some idea that merely listing their titles and a summary of their pages was a copyright violation, you and your colleagues could not do your jobs. Again, this is a key article about that:

• Do Newspapers Owe Google “Fair Share” Fees For Researching Stories?

Journalism isn’t threatened by search engines. Journalism, from newspapers, is threatened by newspaper executives looking to blame the wrong things. There’s plenty of good journalism out there that has learned how to coexist with search, which these get into more:

• Hey Washington State: Make It A 40% Tax Break For Journalism, Not For Newspapers
• Time For Google To Fund An Online-Only Version Of The Pulitzers?

Please take the time to follow up with me by phone, if you really care about more depth in these issues. It is not the way some of the newspaper execs have been painting it.

===

And my letter to the LA Times:

Tim Rutten repeats a myth that many newspaper executives have – that there’s no way for them to be successful online unless they figure out a way to extract licensing fees from Google and other search engines.

Newspapers were in trouble before Google existed. They were also quite happy to drop paywalls over the past three or four years to get more traffic from Google. Now that the ad market is going through a downturn, suddenly Google gets painted as the “problem” causing newspaper woes.

There are plenty of web sites that have grown up on the web and make use of it, as well as search engine traffic, to have healthy business models. There is also plenty of good online journalism. Creating some type of newspaper “bailout”  or relaxing anti-trust laws simply allows newspapers as an industry to have an unfair advantage over their real competition, online journalists.

Rather than wasting time scapegoating search engines, let’s see those who care about the state of newspapers look toward more productive areas.