On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 1:28:54 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:

[...]


After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents
and studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up
about 1% of the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group
that comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?


So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.

From what you write it appears that you believe that if only
someone would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle
traffic would rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all. Or
perhaps not correct is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.

I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle
use is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to
result in some significant increase in cycle use is probably
wishful thinking.

It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made
by Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained
static for the past 30 years.

In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took
his girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a
long story there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to
the prom on a bicycle :-)

California is certainly spending more than 1% of its transportation
budget on bicycle infrastructure. The ATF alone is approximately 1%
of the California transportation budget.
http://www.calbike.org/funding_sources In fact the reviled Governor
Moonbeam, hated by all conservatives, is proposing an increase in the
ATF.
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2017/01/...ver-ten-years/



A dose of reality for you regarding Moonbeam: The bullet train to
nowhere was just upped to $70B. Yes, billion. And that does not include
any of the road projects, union boondoggles, et cetera. That 1% is fake
news.


Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note that
the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation funding --
shifting costs onto the states for the huge, incredible, the bestest
infrastructure projects ever! Most of the big bicycle projects in
Oregon were funded in large part by the feds. There was also state
and local funding under the Oregon Bicycle Bill.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html


Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links. For
example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this connector from
Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rXV2vLEQ/o.jpg

Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a mini-vacation
but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the photo are not
recommended on this route.

Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route? That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.

-- Jay Beattie.