What Right-Wing Governance Does For Cycling

On 3/3/2011 12:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:34 pm, Peter wrote:

I wish we had Portland's safety stats.

Is Boston unusually dangerous?

Compared to Portland.

On 3/3/2011 12:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:28 pm, Peter wrote:
On 3/2/2011 12:24 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
I don't need no
stink'n lanes. I need smooth asphalt. -- Jay Beattie.

You probably don't in Portland, most of it anyway, but people seem to
like them.

People tend to like what people are told they should like. Ask any
advertising professional.

More. Beam. Eye.


As further proof: People used to like bell bottom pants and afros on
white dudes.

- Frank Krygowski

You did?

On Mar 3, 5:39*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/2/2011 6:18 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:


big snip

The obligation to spend public funds on bicycle facilities -- no
matter how bad -- is a lefty invention.

Obligation? How about decision?

Obligation in Oregon.ORS 366.514 -- the so-called
Bicycle Bill. *Actually proposed by a Republican state representative,
but he was an avid bicyclist and therefore a Lefty, kind of like
Lincoln.http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/bike_bill.shtml

Yes, so it was a decision, made by Oregon, not imposed on Oregon.

The law imposes an obligation -- it is non-discretionary. It was
passed as a law, meaning there was legislative support. It was not
referred to the people for a vote. So, as with all laws, it was a
decision "made by Oregon." Social Security was a "decision made by the
United States," but that does not mean it was not a lefty invention.
The Bush tax cuts were a "decision made by the United States" . . .




Note:

The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the intent of this statute in
Bicycle Transportation Alliance v. City of Portland (9309-05777; CA
A82770). The judge's summary was: "Read as a whole, ORS 366.514
requires that when an agency receives state highway funds and
constructs, reconstructs or relocates highways, roads or streets, it
must expend a reasonable amount of those funds, as necessary, on
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The statue also requires the agency
to spend no less than one percent per fiscal year on such facilities,
unless relieved of that obligation by one of the exceptions in
subsection (2)."

Sounds good, as far as it went. One percent is pretty low when modal
share is six.

I wrote and argued that appeal . . . and won. *I'm a lefty, but even I
have gotten to the point where I think a lot of the infrastructure is
stupid -- not just wasteful, but affirmatively bad for me as a
cyclist.

But apparently wildly popular among other cyclists. I'm afraid that
remodeling the world according to your tastes will have to wait for your
coronation.

Wildly popular? Now Peter, have you been polling all my co-horts? I
don't know a single cyclist who likes the bicycle chute or the new 5th
Ave run-the-gauntlet, dodge trains, busses and cars bicycle lane.
Really, I ride a bike lane out of downtown that has me go up on a
sidewalk and down on to a road in front of turning cars and streetcars
-- neither of which can see me coming.

I think the Barbur bike lane may be popular, but it is just a plain
old bike lane -- same with Terwilliger. Like I said, the plain old
bike lanes from 15+ years ago work fine -- except where the road
surface is wrecked.


The right would do nothing.

That's a pretty broad claim.

It is . . . I'm talking far right.

These day, the "far right" seems capable of anything.







The true small government states like Idaho have some dreadful roads.
I believe in spending money to make road surfaces rideable. *I swear
that if I get killed on my bike, it is going to be while riding home
at night in the rain over crappy road surface. *I don't need no
stink'n lanes. *I need smooth asphalt. -- Jay Beattie.

I don't see the zero-sum argument. A reasonable, pragmatic approach
would seem to be to fund facilities by modal share, adjusted to promote
majority wishes for specific goals. I don't know of any cyclists who are
indifferent to potholes, while the majority seem to favor facilities. If
people want bike facilities and good pavement, they just have to pay for
both. It has been done. Portland isn't poor, just cheap. That's hard to
find sympathy for.- Hide quoted text -

We're cheap? *You're f****** nuts! *My water bill (which is used to
pay for some bicycle infrastructure), property taxes and state income
taxes and now increased gas taxes say otherwise.

Compared to what? Idaho? You really want Idaho-class infrastructure?
Good luck with that.

Personally, I see no
need to waste money on goofy signs, boxes, arrows, lines, etc., unless
you are laying out a basketball court or square dancing class.

Make it your first post-coronation decree then.

I will. Actually, I could propose legislation that would probably
pass.

We
have finite resources and should put them to work filling pot holes
rather than putting sharrows on streets so narrow that you couldn't
share them with a skateboard. -- Jay Beattie.

All resources are finite, but it doesn't follow that sharrows mean
unfilled pot holes. If you want to play, you've got to pay. Cycling
budgets are a pittance, motor vehicle infrastructure and "externalized"
costs are enormous in comparison and hardly fairly shared. You sound
awfully right-eous for a self-described lefty.- Hide quoted text -

Are you advocating wasting money? Sharrow money could be put to
other, more productive use -- which would be just about anything.
Really, how is an arrow on a 10 foot wide goat path through the West
Hills helpful? IIRC, this road now has sharrows:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinwa...n/photostream/

On Mar 3, 3:22*am, RobertH wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:57 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
Bicycle farcilities (sic) were originated as a way to confine cyclists
to an area inferior to the motor vehicles, which is hardly a left-wing
position.

False, bicycle facilities were originated by bicyclists before motor
vehicles existed. But don't let that stop ya.

You mean those facilities called "paved roads"? Bicyclists lobbied
for them, but very few of them were segregated, bike-only
facilities.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 3, 9:13*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 12:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 2, 4:34 pm, Peter *wrote:

I wish we had Portland's safety stats.

Is Boston unusually dangerous?

Compared to Portland.

By that standard, there is only one place on earth that's safe
enough. That's whatever town currently has the absolute best safety
ranking.

No, I don't know where it is; but I guess residents of any other
location are supposed to be wringing their hands in fear.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 3, 9:15*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 12:52 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 2, 5:28 pm, Peter *wrote:
On 3/2/2011 12:24 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
* I don't need no
stink'n lanes. *I need smooth asphalt. -- Jay Beattie.

You probably don't in Portland, most of it anyway, but people seem to
like them.

People tend to like what people are told they should like. *Ask any
advertising professional.

More. Beam. Eye.

???

We need PUI laws, I think! (Posting Under the Influence.) ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2011 11:14 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:39 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/2/2011 6:18 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:


big snip

The obligation to spend public funds on bicycle facilities -- no
matter how bad -- is a lefty invention.

Obligation? How about decision?

Obligation in Oregon.ORS 366.514 -- the so-called
Bicycle Bill. Actually proposed by a Republican state representative,
but he was an avid bicyclist and therefore a Lefty, kind of like
Lincoln.http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/bike_bill.shtml

Yes, so it was a decision, made by Oregon, not imposed on Oregon.

The law imposes an obligation -- it is non-discretionary. It was
passed as a law, meaning there was legislative support. It was not
referred to the people for a vote. So, as with all laws, it was a
decision "made by Oregon." Social Security was a "decision made by the
United States," but that does not mean it was not a lefty invention.
The Bush tax cuts were a "decision made by the United States" . . .

Yes, and as far as I know, all of your examples represent decisions
supported by majorities. AKA democracy.


But apparently wildly popular among other cyclists. I'm afraid that
remodeling the world according to your tastes will have to wait for your
coronation.

Wildly popular? Now Peter, have you been polling all my co-horts? I
don't know a single cyclist who likes the bicycle chute or the new 5th
Ave run-the-gauntlet, dodge trains, busses and cars bicycle lane.
Really, I ride a bike lane out of downtown that has me go up on a
sidewalk and down on to a road in front of turning cars and streetcars
-- neither of which can see me coming.

I think the Barbur bike lane may be popular, but it is just a plain
old bike lane -- same with Terwilliger. Like I said, the plain old
bike lanes from 15+ years ago work fine -- except where the road
surface is wrecked.

I'm not a Portland resident, so obviously not familiar enough with your
specific examples to offer an opinion, but I find your insinuation of a
cabal to be implausible.


We're cheap? You're f****** nuts! My water bill (which is used to
pay for some bicycle infrastructure), property taxes and state income
taxes and now increased gas taxes say otherwise.

Compared to what? Idaho? You really want Idaho-class infrastructure?
Good luck with that.

Personally, I see no
need to waste money on goofy signs, boxes, arrows, lines, etc., unless
you are laying out a basketball court or square dancing class.

Make it your first post-coronation decree then.

I will. Actually, I could propose legislation that would probably
pass.

Good luck, then.


All resources are finite, but it doesn't follow that sharrows mean
unfilled pot holes. If you want to play, you've got to pay. Cycling
budgets are a pittance, motor vehicle infrastructure and "externalized"
costs are enormous in comparison and hardly fairly shared. You sound
awfully right-eous for a self-described lefty.- Hide quoted text -

Are you advocating wasting money? Sharrow money could be put to
other, more productive use -- which would be just about anything.
Really, how is an arrow on a 10 foot wide goat path through the West
Hills helpful? IIRC, this road now has sharrows:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinwa...n/photostream/

I'm not a fan of sharrows, either, nor of wasting money, but I find your
protestations much ado about nothing (comparatively).

On 3/3/2011 12:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:22 am, wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:57 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
Bicycle farcilities (sic) were originated as a way to confine cyclists
to an area inferior to the motor vehicles, which is hardly a left-wing
position.

False, bicycle facilities were originated by bicyclists before motor
vehicles existed. But don't let that stop ya.

You mean those facilities called "paved roads"? Bicyclists lobbied
for them, but very few of them were segregated, bike-only
facilities.

Yes, we've made significant progress since then.

On 3/3/2011 12:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:13 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/3/2011 12:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 2, 4:34 pm, Peter wrote:

I wish we had Portland's safety stats.

Is Boston unusually dangerous?

Compared to Portland.

By that standard, there is only one place on earth that's safe
enough. That's whatever town currently has the absolute best safety
ranking.

That's a truly bizarre bit of pseudo-logic.

No, I don't know where it is; but I guess residents of any other
location are supposed to be wringing their hands in fear.

No, just learning from example.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/2/2011 12:01 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"T�m Sherm�nT "
wrote in
message ...
On 3/1/2011 8:04 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " wrote in
message ...
Seehttp://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=4894.

Remember to thank the budget priorities of upper class tax cuts and
subsidies, when your favorite rural riding routes change from pavement
to
road bike unfriendly aggregate surfacing.

I think Minnesota has more miles of roads to maintain than almost any
other
state. If and when we return some asphalt roads to gravel roads, it
just
means that vehicles will have to go slower which will not to be such a
bad
thing. As far a cycling is concerned, I NEVER see cyclists doing any
riding
on rural roads. Cycling is best restricted to urban areas anyway.

As for raising taxes to pay for ever more and better roads, forget
about
it.
The states and counties are all going broke just like the federal
government. Everyone is already paying more than enough taxes.

Nonsense. The upper classes and corporations are only paying a fraction
of what they did under the REPUBLICAN Eisenhower Administration (when
the
middle classes were much better off).

But everything is constantly changing. We now live in a global economy
and
the upper classes and corporations can take whatever they have to foreign
lands. It is what makes it possible for me to shop at Wal-Mart and not be
robbed. Jeez, try to get up to date if that is possible.

The solution
to all our problems is to stop the spending and to learn to get
along on
less. What we spend on education is especially a boondoggle. Yea,
tighten
the belt and welcome deprivation. It is good for the soul!

The biggest boondoggle is what is spent on subsidizing Wall Street
incomes.

Frankly, I do not understand how Wall Street works at all. I would never
give those *******s a single penny.

Wall Street produces no added value, leading to the obvious conclusion
that the investment bankers are merely parasites sucking the economic
blood out of the working classes.

The original purpose of the stock market allowing corporations to raise
capital has been perverted into the world's largest de facto gambling
operation and Ponzi scheme.


In theory there is added value in distribution of
information and enhancing more efficient capital allocation.
At one time those were true. To our great benefit.

We seldom agree but I do on this. It's sadly obvious now.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971