Merging two topics for efficiency

damyth wrote:
On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-...

Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called
advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to
wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so-
called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities,
don't ride bikes. I think these unidentified bike advocates have
ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few
examples:
1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices
2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving.
Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more
abatement than calming)
3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card
carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has
little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a
good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise).

Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as
unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer
than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different
than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests.

As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find
those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling.

Hard to tell Onion copy from NYT copy:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/33808

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

On Mar 11, 12:03*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/11/2011 1:13 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

snip

Having been one of the original board members on the fledgling (now
800lb gorilla) Bicycle Transportation Alliance, I can say that damyth
is basically right. Without getting in to the merits of
environmentalism, traffic calming, etc., etc., it is true that my
board co-horts had numerous and sometimes conflicting super-agendas
(e.g. empowering women, de-powering police, fighting the power,
conserving power -- lots of power issues). *Environmentalism was a big
one.

This is not what damyth was claiming, he was claiming that a
"significant portion of bike advocacy groups don't ride bikes" -- a
rather different thing.

There were some who did not ride much, but I don't know of any who did
not ride at all.

I would expect there to be a great deal of overlap between bike advocacy
and "green" issues. I don't see a conflict of interest -- far from it.

A later added board member was the congressional candidate for
the Pacific Green Party. *Conflicting agendas resulted in a lot of
wasted time, IMO, but then again, I am more of a results person than
a *process person. *Volunteer boards are typically populated by people
who like process -- and lots of it.

What kind of "conflicting agendas"? Do you agree that a big subset of
the bike advocates didn't ride bikes or have any interest in bikes
except to exploit cycling for other agendas?

See above. "Conflicting" may be a poor word choice -- how about
distracting or time wasting or unrelated. I really didn't care about
larger environmental issues except to the extent they put us in line
for CMAQ money. Saving whales was not something I could do through
bicycle advocacy -- that's whale advocacy, Room 101 down the hall.
Same with "empowering" [fill in the blank] or saving indigenous
people, etc., etc. A room full of Bohemians is about 10% efficient on
any issue.


More to the point, all of the issues regarding traffic calming,
environmental improvement, decreased motor vehicle traffic are not
part of some hidden agenda -- they are addressed specifically in
designing bicycle infrastructure, usually by planners or businesses
like Alta.

So what? Is this "guilt by association"? If so, what's the crime? Is
traffic calming incompatible with cycling advocacy? "Environmental
improvement"?

Not at all. My point was that these are all common considerations
when planning infrastructure. I was just making an observation that
simple infrastructure (a stripe, a wide shoulder) does not return
much of a profit for companies in the business of planning
infrastructure.

The EPA has been quite involved in
reducing air pollutants, which are particularly (pun intended) a problem
in dense urban environments like NYC. Street runoff is also a problem
for the pollution of local waterways, prominent in both Portland and
NYC. Water born pollution via the storm water collection system is just
another way that motor traffic and parking is subsidized by general
taxation. It makes perfect sense that some part of the sewer budget
should be made available to the mitigation of the problem at the source.
If that's also favorable to cycling interests, fine.

Bioswales are actually a f****** hazard for bicyclists because they
narrow the road. I had one put in on my main commute route in the
last month. It was put in what was previously a right turn lane. Now
all the cars sit in the bike lane before executing their turn, and I'm
sandwiched against a bioswale. And, BTW, motor traffic and parking is
subsidized by general taxation anyway. All maintenance comes out of
the general fund. It makes sense, since we all drive cars. The
problem with bioswales is that they are funded through my water bill,
along with the big pipe and a billion other bell and whistle projects.

OT, and talking about the EPA, they are now mandating $500 million
dollars worth of treatment facilities for a district that serves
900,000 people to treat for cryptosporidium, which we do not have in
our pristine Bull Run water. Always good to treat for a non-
problem. http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...poised_to.html

I like Mia, but you can't ignore the fact that designing
bicycle infrastructure is a paying business. *Not a lot of money in
painting simple stripes or "vehicular bicycling."

Is there any reason why it shouldn't be a paying business? Are streets
or homes or businesses or yards designed for free in Portland?

Not that I raised the issue, but now that you mention it, yes, we
already pay for city planners. Why should we outsource. Mia used to
work for the City, and I assume her predecessors could do the work. It
is not rocket science or even real engineering, e.g., no FEA, no soils
analysis, no nothing. Read regs and conform.

I didn't see anything conflicting or conspiratorial in any of those
clips. Bicycle boulevards, even Frank likes those. Bioswales, reducing
the stormwater runoff problem -- hardly controversial, except perhaps
for the fact that it's the square miles of impermeable (paved) surfaces
that create most of the problem in the first place. If the two
innovations can be combined in the same space in a complementary
fashion, and one that pleases the local residents, I don't see the big
problem. Neither, apparently, does anyone else. Tempest in a tea pot,
much ado about nothing, not creeping socialism.- Hide quoted text -

No conspiracy intended -- in fact, the clips were intended to show
that environmental, traffic calming and bicycle facility issues are
usually handled together in PDX. That was my point. I don't
necessarily like the way they are handled because it can turn a simple
bike ride into a rat maze, but that is a different issue.

Here is the only conspiracy! This non-native Muslim dude advocating
for bicycle lanes in Portland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPPOUdzeyBo
(tallest building in background is my office). -- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:11 am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote:

On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-...
Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called
advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to
wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so-
called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities,
don't ride bikes.
That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence
to back it up?

I think these unidentified bike advocates have
ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few
examples:
1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices
As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite,
that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic
speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in
traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a
bad thing (either).

2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving.
Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging
driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising
tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of
raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging
driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't.
Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen.

I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view
cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who
likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there.

If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then
reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces
additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've
seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in
urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does
do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may
even reduce congestion by improving net throughput.

Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more
abatement than calming)
It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must
assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may
(theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area,
those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist
numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes.

Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease
in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side
effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to
reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural
allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you
are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for
anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the
need for conspiracy.

3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card
carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has
little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a
good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise).
Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental
"micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated
for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area,
building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc.
Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level
that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is
difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as
studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease
with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local
than global issue.

Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as
unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer
than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different
than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests.
Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot
soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to
indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In
the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians --
historically, a more serious problem.

As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find
those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling.
You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence
doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself.

Having been one of the original board members on the fledgling (now
800lb gorilla) Bicycle Transportation Alliance, I can say that damyth
is basically right. Without getting in to the merits of
environmentalism, traffic calming, etc., etc., it is true that my
board co-horts had numerous and sometimes conflicting super-agendas
(e.g. empowering women, de-powering police, fighting the power,
conserving power -- lots of power issues). Environmentalism was a big
one. A later added board member was the congressional candidate for
the Pacific Green Party. Conflicting agendas resulted in a lot of
wasted time, IMO, but then again, I am more of a results person than
a process person. Volunteer boards are typically populated by people
who like process -- and lots of it.

More to the point, all of the issues regarding traffic calming,
environmental improvement, decreased motor vehicle traffic are not
part of some hidden agenda -- they are addressed specifically in
designing bicycle infrastructure, usually by planners or businesses
like Alta. I like Mia, but you can't ignore the fact that designing
bicycle infrastructure is a paying business. Not a lot of money in
painting simple stripes or "vehicular bicycling." -- Jay Beattie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJD83KXNg4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM60DqAM6bQ
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...dams_bike.html
http://newurbannetwork.com/article/b...d-travel-13959

Oh, you poor soul.
Sounds like the nattering of the Mensheviks versus the
Bolsheviks at our Council meetings.

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

Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:11 am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote:

On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-...
Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called
advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to
wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so-
called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities,
don't ride bikes.
That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence
to back it up?

I think these unidentified bike advocates have
ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few
examples:
1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices
As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite,
that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic
speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in
traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a
bad thing (either).

2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving.
Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging
driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising
tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of
raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging
driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't.
Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen.

I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view
cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who
likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there.

If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then
reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces
additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've
seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in
urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does
do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may
even reduce congestion by improving net throughput.

Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more
abatement than calming)
It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must
assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may
(theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area,
those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist
numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes.

Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease
in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side
effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to
reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural
allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you
are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for
anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the
need for conspiracy.

3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card
carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has
little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a
good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise).
Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental
"micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated
for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area,
building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc.
Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level
that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is
difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as
studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease
with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local
than global issue.

Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as
unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer
than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different
than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests.
Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot
soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to
indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In
the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians --
historically, a more serious problem.

As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find
those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling.
You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence
doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself.

Having been one of the original board members on the fledgling (now
800lb gorilla) Bicycle Transportation Alliance, I can say that damyth
is basically right. Without getting in to the merits of
environmentalism, traffic calming, etc., etc., it is true that my
board co-horts had numerous and sometimes conflicting super-agendas
(e.g. empowering women, de-powering police, fighting the power,
conserving power -- lots of power issues). Environmentalism was a big
one. A later added board member was the congressional candidate for
the Pacific Green Party. Conflicting agendas resulted in a lot of
wasted time, IMO, but then again, I am more of a results person than
a process person. Volunteer boards are typically populated by people
who like process -- and lots of it.

More to the point, all of the issues regarding traffic calming,
environmental improvement, decreased motor vehicle traffic are not
part of some hidden agenda -- they are addressed specifically in
designing bicycle infrastructure, usually by planners or businesses
like Alta. I like Mia, but you can't ignore the fact that designing
bicycle infrastructure is a paying business. Not a lot of money in
painting simple stripes or "vehicular bicycling." -- Jay Beattie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJD83KXNg4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM60DqAM6bQ
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...dams_bike.html
http://newurbannetwork.com/article/b...d-travel-13959

Oh, you poor soul.
Sounds like the nattering of the Mensheviks versus the
Bolsheviks at our Council meetings.

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

On 3/11/2011 2:03 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
So what? Is this "guilt by association"? If so, what's the crime? Is
traffic calming incompatible with cycling advocacy? "Environmental
improvement"? That's a fuzzy term. The EPA has been quite involved in
reducing air pollutants, which are particularly (pun intended) a problem
in dense urban environments like NYC. [...]

This appears to be an overpopulation problem.

[...]
I didn't see anything conflicting or conspiratorial in any of those
clips. Bicycle boulevards, even Frank likes those. Bioswales, reducing
the stormwater runoff problem -- hardly controversial,[...]

The USian right is opposed to bioswales on principal. Among their
allies are certain "Christian" sects who believe all resources need to
be consumed before the Second Coming.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 3/11/2011 4:36 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
[...]
Sounds like the nattering of the Mensheviks versus the Bolsheviks at our
Council meetings.

At least those groups had better things to do than ban bird feeding and
skin diving.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/11/2011 4:36 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
[...]
Sounds like the nattering of the Mensheviks versus the Bolsheviks at our
Council meetings.

At least those groups had better things to do than ban bird feeding and
skin diving.


"Expert" study group, many reports, interminable meetings
which ramble on about ecosensitivity and social justice,
report back on statutory conflicts, EPA guidelines and
impact on at-risk communities followed by another study
group, repeat.

The referenced ordinances are a typical product of that
process. As are chunks of concrete in the middle of the
street and similar twaddle.

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

On Mar 11, 7:11*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote:

On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter *wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-....

Let's face it. *I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called
advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to
wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so-
called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities,
don't ride bikes.

That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence
to back it up?

I think these unidentified bike advocates have
ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. *Here are a few
examples:
1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices

As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite,
that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic
speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in
traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a
bad thing (either).

2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving.

Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging
driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising
tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of
raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging
driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't.
Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen.

I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view
cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who
likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there..

If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then
reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces
additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've
seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in
urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does
do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may
even reduce congestion by improving net throughput.

Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more
abatement than calming)

It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must
assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may
(theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area,
those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist
numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes.

Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease
in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side
effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to
reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural
allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you
are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for
anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the
need for conspiracy.

3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card
carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has
little to do with the environment. *Primarily I do it because it's a
good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise).

Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental
"micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated
for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area,
building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc.
Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level
that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is
difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as
studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease
with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local
than global issue.

Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as
unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer
than normal streets) is reprehensible. *It's really not any different
than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests.

Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot
soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to
indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In
the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians --
historically, a more serious problem.

As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find
those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling.

You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence
doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself.

If these so-called (NYC) pro-facilities bike advocates rode bikes
they'd comprehend the magnitude of their ineptitude and realize
exactly how considerably more dangerous the facilities are compared to
wide streets. New York cyclists aren't stupid, they recognize the
facilities for what what they are. We've hashed over this territory
before on this very newsgroup.
http://thecityfix.com/more-on-bike-c...nue-bike-lane/

I'm all for reducing cars in the city. But if the city wants to
institute a policy to reduce cars, they should just be forthright
about it, and not use bike facilities as an excuse to discourage
driving. The rationales put forward by NYC to promote midtown bike
facilities make about as much sense the rationale given for invading
Iraq, Saddam had WMDs. It creates unnecessary class warfare between
drivers and cyclists. For example, they can by fiat reserve two lanes
on each avenue as "bus lanes" (currently it's only one lane), and
declare it mixed use for bicycles. It would accomplish all the city's
goals of reducing traffic without the deep-seated divisions.

As to your point that tolls are regressive and discriminate against
the poor who drive, guess what, even "pre-facility" it was already a
regressive system. Parking fees alone are expensive enough to
discriminate against the poor, never mind the $4/gal price of gas.
The poor in NYC have enough sense than to own a car in the city, this
might not be a PC thing to say, but that's just the reality.

Lastly, in prior discussions regarding facilities, I intimated NYC
cooked up statistics to justify the facilities build out. John
Cassidy's article in the New Yorker is rather more explicit:
"But now, apparently, Weinshall (the former transportation
commissioner) has had enough. In her lawsuit, according to the Times,
she is promising to expose the cozy relationship between officials and
bike activists as well the dubious statistics that the city uses to
justify its policies." Considering it was largely on Weinshall's
watch that the facilities got approved and built, I'd say that's
rather damning evidence.

On 3/12/2011 10:08 AM, damyth wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:11 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote:

On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-...

Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called
advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to
wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so-
called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities,
don't ride bikes.

That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence
to back it up?

I think these unidentified bike advocates have
ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few
examples:
1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices

As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite,
that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic
speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in
traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a
bad thing (either).

2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving.

Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging
driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising
tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of
raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging
driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't.
Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen.

I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view
cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who
likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there.

If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then
reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces
additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've
seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in
urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does
do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may
even reduce congestion by improving net throughput.

Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more
abatement than calming)

It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must
assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may
(theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area,
those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist
numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes.

Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease
in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side
effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to
reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural
allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you
are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for
anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the
need for conspiracy.

3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card
carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has
little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a
good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise).

Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental
"micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated
for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area,
building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc.
Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level
that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is
difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as
studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease
with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local
than global issue.

Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as
unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer
than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different
than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests.

Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot
soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to
indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In
the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians --
historically, a more serious problem.

As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find
those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling.

You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence
doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself.

If these so-called (NYC) pro-facilities bike advocates rode bikes
they'd comprehend the magnitude of their ineptitude and realize
exactly how considerably more dangerous the facilities are compared to
wide streets.

Again, the statistics collected so far don't seem to support your opinion.

New York cyclists aren't stupid, they recognize the
facilities for what what they are. We've hashed over this territory
before on this very newsgroup.
http://thecityfix.com/more-on-bike-c...nue-bike-lane/

Yes, I remember.


I'm all for reducing cars in the city. But if the city wants to
institute a policy to reduce cars, they should just be forthright
about it, and not use bike facilities as an excuse to discourage
driving.

Again, I'm afraid the burden of that proof rests with you.

The rationales put forward by NYC to promote midtown bike
facilities make about as much sense the rationale given for invading
Iraq, Saddam had WMDs.

Sure, exactly like that.

It creates unnecessary class warfare between
drivers and cyclists. For example, they can by fiat reserve two lanes
on each avenue as "bus lanes" (currently it's only one lane), and
declare it mixed use for bicycles. It would accomplish all the city's
goals of reducing traffic without the deep-seated divisions.

Put it in the suggestion box.


As to your point that tolls are regressive and discriminate against
the poor who drive, guess what, even "pre-facility" it was already a
regressive system.

How did facilities make it more regressive?

Parking fees alone are expensive enough to
discriminate against the poor, never mind the $4/gal price of gas.
The poor in NYC have enough sense than to own a car in the city, this
might not be a PC thing to say, but that's just the reality.

I fail to see your point.


Lastly, in prior discussions regarding facilities, I intimated NYC
cooked up statistics to justify the facilities build out. John
Cassidy's article in the New Yorker is rather more explicit:
"But now, apparently, Weinshall (the former transportation
commissioner) has had enough. In her lawsuit, according to the Times,
she is promising to expose the cozy relationship between officials and
bike activists as well the dubious statistics that the city uses to
justify its policies." Considering it was largely on Weinshall's
watch that the facilities got approved and built, I'd say that's
rather damning evidence.

I think you need to do a little more reading. Weinshall's suit is just
another fat cat NIMBY hissy fit. Maybe she has the connections to get
her way, but it doesn't look good.

As for Cassidy, he's a "personality", not a reporter. He panders to
people like you to sell copy. I couldn't possibly do a better job of
deconstructing his blather than this:

http://naparstek.com/2011/03/bike-la...akes-no-sense/

I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that many bicycle
advocates in NYC don't bike or have any interest in bicycling.

On 3/12/2011 10:08 AM, damyth wrote:

As to your point that tolls are regressive and discriminate against
the poor who drive, guess what, even "pre-facility" it was already a
regressive system. Parking fees alone are expensive enough to
discriminate against the poor, never mind the $4/gal price of gas.
The poor in NYC have enough sense than to own a car in the city, this
might not be a PC thing to say, but that's just the reality.

The economics of transportation in a place like NYC is quite a complex
subject. The pro-car lobby usually has little science or economics to
support their arguments, the true costs are staggering.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/0..._traffic/all/1

As Ezra Klein points out, the real beneficiaries of reduced congestion
are motorists.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._neighbor.html