| |
Main
Date: 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16
From: damyth
Subject: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:10:25
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 21, 7:51 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>
>
> Fair enough. I think the problem is one of insisting that one design fits all
> and that design is unreasonably expensive and overengineered and probably lawyer
> approved. I would prefer simple and modest accomodations everywhere over
> elaborate and deathly expensive government projects that serve very few. Then
> when it is seen that the simple sidewalk or bike path gets use, expand it.
Along those lines: I was once told that upon construction of a new
university campus (perhaps U. of Alaska? I forget...) the university
president decreed that the building of sidewalks wouldn't be completed
until after they'd made the students walk across the grass for a few
months. When they saw where students actually wanted to walk, they
put the sidewalks there.
> In Tampa there was a petition at a bike shop to add bike lanes to a major
> thoroughfare that is served by a multiuse path that runs parallel. Cyclists have
> the option of using the MUP, sidewalk or playing in traffic. The local
> "advocates" wanted bike lanes to the road also.
>
> Here's the kicker, there is no path, lane or anything but a narrow and badly
> paved four-lane on the road in front of this store. This road is the one I use
> to get to the road in question and is daunting to any but the boldest riders.
> I'd rather see _something_ damn near anything on every road before we start
> demanding something fancy or expensive on any one road.
This sounds pretty logical, if done correctly. I'd like to make sure
that the _something_ on every road was at least not done so badly as
to be a hazard.
In fact, my preferred "something" would be a nice wide outside lane,
perhaps marked with sharrows (and no parking). That should be easy
enough to get right.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 00:02:56
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST05092007.htm
see topozone Titusville.
track runs north then left to Osteen
orlando route and camping
and cottonmouths
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 20:05:24
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 17, 5:11 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com > wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
> > On 2007-09-16, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
> >> Jim Flom wrote:
> >> I'd
> >>> love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
> >>> didn't pick up on it.
> >> $395 million.
> >>http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm
>
> >> 1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
> >> because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
> >>http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm
>
> > Thank goodness we have no problem spending $2billion *PER WEEK* in
> > Iraq!
>
> Oh, no! The "I" word. Quickest way to sidetrack a decent discussion. How
> does it go? "We are the richest nation on earth. It is ridiculous to say
> we can't afford this. It isn't even costing 2% of our GNP."
Because Americans are now Capitalists first and Democrats second,
EVERY decision must be an economic decision. Because suffering and
happiness and life and death, or pride and shame cannot be exchanged
for gold or yen or pounds sterling, cannot be fit easily into Wall
Street's equation they are simply dropped from the calculus. That is
where Capitalism diverges from Democracy. Whatever your life is like
here, or whatever your opinions are about the "I word", it is at that
point that America failed the hopes of her founders.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 18:00:08
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 20, 1:18 pm, Matt O'Toole <mattoto...@letterboxes.org > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:25:40 -0700, frkrygow wrote:
> > FWIW, I'm not stating either of those extreme positions. I'm on record
> > as being in favor of transportational bike paths. I'm also on record as
> > saying that very few bike paths are transportational, by any reasonable
> > definition.
>
> > "Reasonable definition"? If 100 riders go by who are doing out-and-
> > back rides to and from their car's bike rack, and one rider uses the
> > path to get to the grocery, that path can't be reasonably defined as
> > transportational. It's a recreational facility. The one grocery rider
> > is an anomaly.
>
> You're looking at it the wrong way. If the one grocery rider using the
> trail contributes significantly to a reasonable percentage of
> transportation trips by bike in the area, then the trail is a viable
> transportation facility. The recreational users aren't part of the
> calculation.
I disagree.
What if that one grocery rider is the only tranportational cyclist in
a city of 50,000? What if he uses that trail once a week to get
groceries, while 1000 people use it for a once a week, out-and-back
recreational cruise? The trail might then contribute a "reasonable
percentage" to the transportational bike trips in that area, but only
because there are almost none.
The proper metric is the actual use made of the trail. If it's used
almost entirely for recreation, it's just not reasonable to call it
"transportational."
> To make it really simple, let's pretend there's one road in the area, and
> one trail, and 100 residents. One guy rides his bike on the trail to get
> to work, while everyone else drives their car on the road. So the
> percentage of transportation trips by bike is 1%. If the trail only cost
> 1% of the transportation budget, then it was a really good value. That
> the other 99 residents also show up to ride the trail for exercise doesn't
> change that.
OK, I think you're closer to a good argument if you say that the
transportational money spent on the trail should be proportional to
the percent of the area's transportation that takes place on that
trail.
However, I doubt that's ever the case in America. It's certainly not
_usually_ the case.
As always, hard data is welcome.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 02:17:08
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 19, 8:36 am, !Jones <p...@off.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:25:40 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech
>
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> >If you _really_ want transportational MUPs, they should provide better
> >access to places people currently go. For example, there are large
> >shopping areas near here, close to neighborhoods, but the residents
> >must drive the long way around on busy roads to access them. A
> >shortcut MUP would make sense there.
>
> Modern shopping centers are not designed for bicycle access. In fact,
> they resist adding it for some unknown reason. The surrounding
> neighborhoods tend to seal off access for good reason; they don't want
> mall traffic.
I think the main "traffic" neighborhoods don't want is motor vehicle
traffic.
> The 'hoods will tend to be the most vocal opponent of a
> through bike route, I have noticed.
Well, the useless rail-trail not far from here got vicious opposition
from the neighborhoods immediately adjacent. One couple I know who
lives there attended meetings to speak forcefully against it.
Once the trail went in, that same couple came to me for advice on
buying bikes to ride on it. They now think it's wonderful for their
recreation.
Oddly enough, the predicted upswing in burglaries, kidnappings,
muggings, murders and rapes never occurred. Go figure!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 02:12:29
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 19, 10:00 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16 -0700, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> >interesting read:
> >http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>
> My candidate for complete waste of dollars are the elaborate sidewalks I'm
> seeing in the far suburbs where nobody walks. These go on for miles, with
> minibridges over gullies and rails along each section that is more than a few
> inches above the surroundings and the whole thing handicapped accessible.
>
> Most expensive concrete I've ever see per pedestrian mile.
OTOH, I live in a place where the busy arterial has no sidewalks, and
the arterial's bridge over the freeway has no sidewalks. When those
were built (or widened to present configuration) the DOT figured
"Nobody will want to walk here."
Since then, the area half a mile away has grown to be a major shopping
area. But although there are hundreds of homes within half a mile,
almost nobody walks because it's too ugly and hostile for peds.
(Ditto for cyclists, to tell the truth.)
Some DOTs seem to claim "nobody wants to walk there." Then when they
leave out the sidewalks, they say "See? We were right. Nobody walks
there."
I'm not saying that there are no sidewalks that are underutilized.
But there are probably more places that should have them, and
don't.
Build it and they will come. Don't build it, and they won't come.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 19:51:38
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:12:29 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>On Sep 19, 10:00 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16 -0700, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
>> >interesting read:
>> >http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>>
>> My candidate for complete waste of dollars are the elaborate sidewalks I'm
>> seeing in the far suburbs where nobody walks. These go on for miles, with
>> minibridges over gullies and rails along each section that is more than a few
>> inches above the surroundings and the whole thing handicapped accessible.
>>
>> Most expensive concrete I've ever see per pedestrian mile.
>
>OTOH, I live in a place where the busy arterial has no sidewalks, and
>the arterial's bridge over the freeway has no sidewalks. When those
>were built (or widened to present configuration) the DOT figured
>"Nobody will want to walk here."
>
>Since then, the area half a mile away has grown to be a major shopping
>area. But although there are hundreds of homes within half a mile,
>almost nobody walks because it's too ugly and hostile for peds.
>(Ditto for cyclists, to tell the truth.)
>
>Some DOTs seem to claim "nobody wants to walk there." Then when they
>leave out the sidewalks, they say "See? We were right. Nobody walks
>there."
>
>I'm not saying that there are no sidewalks that are underutilized.
>But there are probably more places that should have them, and
>don't.
>
>Build it and they will come. Don't build it, and they won't come.
Fair enough. I think the problem is one of insisting that one design fits all
and that design is unreasonably expensive and overengineered and probably lawyer
approved. I would prefer simple and modest accomodations everywhere over
elaborate and deathly expensive government projects that serve very few. Then
when it is seen that the simple sidewalk or bike path gets use, expand it.
In Tampa there was a petition at a bike shop to add bike lanes to a major
thoroughfare that is served by a multiuse path that runs parallel. Cyclists have
the option of using the MUP, sidewalk or playing in traffic. The local
"advocates" wanted bike lanes to the road also.
Here's the kicker, there is no path, lane or anything but a narrow and badly
paved four-lane on the road in front of this store. This road is the one I use
to get to the road in question and is daunting to any but the boldest riders.
I'd rather see _something_ damn near anything on every road before we start
demanding something fancy or expensive on any one road.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 22:00:03
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16 -0700, damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com >
wrote:
>Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
>interesting read:
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
My candidate for complete waste of dollars are the elaborate sidewalks I'm
seeing in the far suburbs where nobody walks. These go on for miles, with
minibridges over gullies and rails along each section that is more than a few
inches above the surroundings and the whole thing handicapped accessible.
Most expensive concrete I've ever see per pedestrian mile.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 20:35:57
From: CNN_news
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 15, 11:24 am, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> interesting read:http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
The aging infrastructure is one of the factors reducing the number of
vehicles on the road.
If you want to reduce traffic, oil consumption and emissions then
reduce the number of roads or restrict them to commercial traffic
only.
Or charge fees to enter the city during certain hours (eg like London,
England)
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:34:10
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 18, 1:40 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > How's this for an idea: Every time a bike trail is built, have it
> > surveyed four to six months after completion. If more than 75% of the
> > people on it are just riding for fun (as opposed to replacing a car
> > trip), the cost of the trail gets taken out of Parks & Recreation
> > budgets, not transportation budgets.
>
> Far be it from me to defend MUPs, but there's a
> possibility you are asking to measure the wrong
> fraction. Suppose only 10% of the traffic on MUPs
> in an area is transportation, but 25% of the bike
> commutes in the area use a MUP at some point.
> Then the MUPs are serving a legitimate commuting
> purpose, but fail your criterion. IOW, your
> criterion penalizes a MUP for being popular with
> recreational users, as opposed to penalizing it
> for being not useful for transportation.
As I see it, my criterion doesn't penalize the MUP; it merely pays for
it from the proper pot of money. If people want recreation, they
should pay for it as recreation.
If you like, we could modify my idea. Rather than have, say, a 25%
user threshold to define it as sufficiently transportational, let's
just make the cost accounting proportional to the use. Survey it to
determine the actual percentage that's transportational. Pay for that
percentage from transportation funds. Pay for the recreational
percentage from recreation funds.
Sounds fair to me.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:25:40
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, !Jones <p...@off.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:48:44 -0000, in rec.bicycles.tech
>
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I think if we took the money
> >spent to build pretty rail trails through the countryside, and put it
> >into practical on-street and transportational cycling improvements,
> >we'd do much, much more good.
>
> Personally, I love "rail trails" and tend to believe that these are,
> in fact, a good investment of tax dollars. Further, some bike paths
> would qualify as transportation... and some don't.
>
> The issue in this particular discussion is that both facets are taking
> a categorical interpretation of the other's position. "All bike paths
> are transportation infrastructure" is an equally absurd statement as
> saying "NO bike paths qualify for transportation funding". Obviously,
> some do and some don't. Taken in that context, I don't find the
> secretary's remarks to be particularly threatening.
FWIW, I'm not stating either of those extreme positions. I'm on
record as being in favor of transportational bike paths. I'm also on
record as saying that very few bike paths are transportational, by any
reasonable definition.
"Reasonable definition"? If 100 riders go by who are doing out-and-
back rides to and from their car's bike rack, and one rider uses the
path to get to the grocery, that path can't be reasonably defined as
transportational. It's a recreational facility. The one grocery
rider is an anomaly.
Recreational facilities are fine, but they should be paid for from the
proper account - something to do with parks & recreation. It's
dishonest to misuse money that was collected for transportation
purposes.
As a guess, I'd say each mile of multi-user path must cost as much as
modifying over 100 traffic light sensors to detect bicyclists. That
money would also pay for hundreds of bike racks in front of
businesses, or hundreds of bike carriers on the front of buses.
If you _really_ want transportational MUPs, they should provide better
access to places people currently go. For example, there are large
shopping areas near here, close to neighborhoods, but the residents
must drive the long way around on busy roads to access them. A
shortcut MUP would make sense there.
Those sorts of things are transportation projects, and those are where
transportation dollars should be spent.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:18:22
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:25:40 -0700, frkrygow wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not stating either of those extreme positions. I'm on record
> as being in favor of transportational bike paths. I'm also on record as
> saying that very few bike paths are transportational, by any reasonable
> definition.
>
> "Reasonable definition"? If 100 riders go by who are doing out-and-
> back rides to and from their car's bike rack, and one rider uses the
> path to get to the grocery, that path can't be reasonably defined as
> transportational. It's a recreational facility. The one grocery rider
> is an anomaly.
You're looking at it the wrong way. If the one grocery rider using the
trail contributes significantly to a reasonable percentage of
transportation trips by bike in the area, then the trail is a viable
transportation facility. The recreational users aren't part of the
calculation.
To make it really simple, let's pretend there's one road in the area, and
one trail, and 100 residents. One guy rides his bike on the trail to get
to work, while everyone else drives their car on the road. So the
percentage of transportation trips by bike is 1%. If the trail only cost
1% of the transportation budget, then it was a really good value. That
the other 99 residents also show up to ride the trail for exercise doesn't
change that.
Matt O.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:53:37
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
In article
<1190172340.747388.121790@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >
,
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:05 pm, !Jones <p...@off.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:48:44 -0000, in rec.bicycles.tech
> >
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >I think if we took the money
> > >spent to build pretty rail trails through the countryside, and put it
> > >into practical on-street and transportational cycling improvements,
> > >we'd do much, much more good.
> >
> > Personally, I love "rail trails" and tend to believe that these are,
> > in fact, a good investment of tax dollars. Further, some bike paths
> > would qualify as transportation... and some don't.
> >
> > The issue in this particular discussion is that both facets are taking
> > a categorical interpretation of the other's position. "All bike paths
> > are transportation infrastructure" is an equally absurd statement as
> > saying "NO bike paths qualify for transportation funding". Obviously,
> > some do and some don't. Taken in that context, I don't find the
> > secretary's remarks to be particularly threatening.
>
> FWIW, I'm not stating either of those extreme positions. I'm on
> record as being in favor of transportational bike paths. I'm also on
> record as saying that very few bike paths are transportational, by any
> reasonable definition.
>
> "Reasonable definition"? If 100 riders go by who are doing out-and-
> back rides to and from their car's bike rack, and one rider uses the
> path to get to the grocery, that path can't be reasonably defined as
> transportational. It's a recreational facility. The one grocery
> rider is an anomaly.
>
> Recreational facilities are fine, but they should be paid for from the
> proper account - something to do with parks & recreation. It's
> dishonest to misuse money that was collected for transportation
> purposes.
>
> As a guess, I'd say each mile of multi-user path must cost as much as
> modifying over 100 traffic light sensors to detect bicyclists. That
> money would also pay for hundreds of bike racks in front of
> businesses, or hundreds of bike carriers on the front of buses.
>
> If you _really_ want transportational MUPs, they should provide better
> access to places people currently go. For example, there are large
> shopping areas near here, close to neighborhoods, but the residents
> must drive the long way around on busy roads to access them. A
> shortcut MUP would make sense there.
>
> Those sorts of things are transportation projects, and those are where
> transportation dollars should be spent.
We should totally give up on bicycle paths and bicycle lanes.
Topologically, they are a are a practical impossibility.
No special treatment for bicycles as transportation.
No complaining about bicycle right-of-way hindered
by skaters on municipal bicycle paths.
Simplify.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 12:36:02
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:25:40 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>If you _really_ want transportational MUPs, they should provide better
>access to places people currently go. For example, there are large
>shopping areas near here, close to neighborhoods, but the residents
>must drive the long way around on busy roads to access them. A
>shortcut MUP would make sense there.
Modern shopping centers are not designed for bicycle access. In fact,
they resist adding it for some unknown reason. The surrounding
neighborhoods tend to seal off access for good reason; they don't want
mall traffic. The 'hoods will tend to be the most vocal opponent of a
through bike route, I have noticed.
Jones
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:34:57
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:36:02 +0000, !Jones wrote:
> Modern shopping centers are not designed for bicycle access. In fact,
> they resist adding it for some unknown reason. The surrounding
> neighborhoods tend to seal off access for good reason; they don't want
> mall traffic. The 'hoods will tend to be the most vocal opponent of a
> through bike route, I have noticed.
Actually that's not true. There are always a few cranks, but in my
experience, most people would love to have more bike/ped connections in
their neighborhood. Unfortunately they're not always offered the choice.
Developers don't build bike/ped connections because it takes effort and
costs money. Some are smart enough to understand how it can enhance their
bottom line, and have enough background in good design practice to know
how to make it work. The rest either don't know any better, or they don't
give a shit. There's a wide range of talent and ability in every field.
Real estate development is no different.
Matt O.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:27:52
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:34:57 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Matt O'Toole
<mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote:
>>The 'hoods will tend to be the most vocal opponent of a
>> through bike route, I have noticed.
>
>Actually that's not true. There are always a few cranks, but in my
>experience, most people would love to have more bike/ped connections in
>their neighborhood. Unfortunately they're not always offered the choice.
It's true in my experience; however, your milage may vary.
An open, inner city neighborhood that already has through streets
won't complain about a bike route, but, if you get close to a mall
where the surrounding 'hoods have closed up tighter than oysters, the
neighborhood organizations will fight it tooth and nail.
Now, nobody objects to bike / ped access to the mall... but only so
long as they don't provide the ROW. If you ask such a 'hood to
provide an opening in their mall-facing fence, then you'd better be
ready for a screaming fight. "They want to destroy our way of life
and rape our wives!!! Burglaries will triple and it'll be utter
murder and mayhem!!! Use the existing streets... NIMBY, NIMBY!!!"
they'll shriek... try it.
Not everyone loves bicyclists and pedestrians, I'm afraid.
Jones
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 08:52:13
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
> Modern shopping centers are not designed for bicycle access. In fact,
> they resist adding it for some unknown reason. The surrounding
> neighborhoods tend to seal off access for good reason; they don't want
> mall traffic. The 'hoods will tend to be the most vocal opponent of a
> through bike route, I have noticed.
This is true. There is a mall not far from me, and the neighborhood does
not want a cut in the wall for access. They are worried about parking,
crime, etc. The mall had always been a very bad neighbor, and there's a
lot of bad blood between the mall owner and the city. We just stopped
the mall from converting retail space to condos, which they were sure
they could do with a developer friendly city council, but the evil-doers
were defeated in an election that prevented the rezoning.
OTOH, a supermarket not far from me does have an opening in the fence
for neighborhood access and it seems to have worked out okay.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:34:43
From: autopi
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Dear Jones,
you chastise others for constructing false dilemmas and straw men, but
you are doing the same yourself. You say that Peters' point is that
her budget was reduced by 10% b/c of earmarks, which is of course
true. But then you contrast this with attributing to her the view that
spending on bike trails takes away money from spending on roads and
bridges. But there is obviously no dilemma here: she said BOTH things,
and they are mutually consistent.
> then... if you take that interpretation, you really don't have
> anything over which to begin shrieking about how your rights are being
> violated, and that's a whole lot more fun than rational thought, in my
> opinion.
>
I don't mean to suggest anything about anybody's "rights" here, I
don't have any particular policy axe to grind in this debate. I agree
with what you say in another post, namely that Peters' comments are
not particularly threatening. She's a politician, and there's a good
chance she's saying what's politicaly expedient at the moment, and/or
that she's just speaking off the cuff when she mentions bike trails.
My point is merely that I think the previous poster's interpretation
of Peters' is sound, and that your snarling "I wrote what I meant, did
you read what I said" doesn't help further the discussion but only
raises rancor.
Finally, I stand by my claim that the DOT essentially refused to
answer the Salon reporter's inquiry; I did not say they did not reply
at all. I merely meant to point out that the email they received was
extremely uninformative. I'm glad you found it more enlightening than
I did. By all means please do share if your communication with the DOT
can shed any more light on the subject.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 02:57:09
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:34:43 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech autopi
<iamnetflix@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Dear Jones,
>you chastise others for constructing false dilemmas and straw men, but
>you are doing the same yourself. You say that Peters' point is that
>her budget was reduced by 10% b/c of earmarks, which is of course
>true. But then you contrast this with attributing to her the view that
>spending on bike trails takes away money from spending on roads and
>bridges. But there is obviously no dilemma here: she said BOTH things,
>and they are mutually consistent.
Please go back and underline the point at which I suggested you must
accept exclusively one or the other. I agree that there is no
dilemma... did I say there was?
[ snipped with no disagreement ]
>My point is merely that I think the previous poster's interpretation
>of Peters' is sound, and that your snarling "I wrote what I meant, did
>you read what I said" doesn't help further the discussion but only
>raises rancor.
I know well that tactic because I have used it myself as early as
debates over the Vietnam War in 1964. The old "what do you mean?" bit
has several forms; they all essentially involve grabbing tempo by
causing the other person to respond to your demand for more
information. That tactic was made famous by Joe McCarthy who used it
with devastating effect in the '50s... and I know it when I see it
because I have used it. Thus, when someone pulls it, I just refuse to
buy in, instead saying that what I meant is exactly what I wrote,
which is an accurate statement.
If that offends you, then I regret that.
[ truncated with no further issues. ]
Jones
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 17:40:52
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 18, 8:48 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> Certainly, almost all cycling on Multi-User Paths is NOT
> transportation. FWIW, I'd be happy to stop funding recreational MUPs
> from transportation dollars.
>
> Which is not to say I want all that recreation bike path money to be
> spent on motor vehicle infrastructure. I think if we took the money
> spent to build pretty rail trails through the countryside, and put it
> into practical on-street and transportational cycling improvements,
> we'd do much, much more good.
>
> How's this for an idea: Every time a bike trail is built, have it
> surveyed four to six months after completion. If more than 75% of the
> people on it are just riding for fun (as opposed to replacing a car
> trip), the cost of the trail gets taken out of Parks & Recreation
> budgets, not transportation budgets.
Far be it from me to defend MUPs, but there's a
possibility you are asking to measure the wrong
fraction. Suppose only 10% of the traffic on MUPs
in an area is transportation, but 25% of the bike
commutes in the area use a MUP at some point.
Then the MUPs are serving a legitimate commuting
purpose, but fail your criterion. IOW, your
criterion penalizes a MUP for being popular with
recreational users, as opposed to penalizing it
for being not useful for transportation.
I doubt this is meaningful for "rail trails through
the countryside," but think it might be an issue
in urban areas, for example the network of paths
and trails in Washington D.C.
> Oh, and every person who actually used their car to get their bike to
> the trailhead counts double against the trail's "transportation"
> status.
There is a second issue, which is whether it is
always inappropriate to spend transportation money
on things that are used recreationally. IIRC,
Storrow Drive in Boston has a plaque commemorating
its dedication in 1951 as a parkway for bringing
pleasure driving to the residents of Boston.
Anyone who's ever driven on it will wince at the
use of the word "pleasure" (Does anyone actually
go for a "Sunday drive" for pleasure anymore ???)
but that was one way they thought about parkways
fifty years ago.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 12:34:03
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Far be it from me to defend MUPs, but there's a
> possibility you are asking to measure the wrong
> fraction. Suppose only 10% of the traffic on MUPs
> in an area is transportation, but 25% of the bike
> commutes in the area use a MUP at some point.
> Then the MUPs are serving a legitimate commuting
> purpose, but fail your criterion. IOW, your
> criterion penalizes a MUP for being popular with
> recreational users, as opposed to penalizing it
> for being not useful for transportation.
This is true. Even the paths that are popular for recreation are often
used extensively for commuting. There are also paths that are used
almost exclusively for commuting.
Maybe it's a regional thing. In California, Oregon, and Washington there
are a lot of these paths and a lot of bike commuters that use them.
Maybe back east this is not the case.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 16:42:07
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
SMS wrote:
>
> Maybe it's a regional thing. In California, Oregon, and Washington there
> are a lot of these paths and a lot of bike commuters that use them.
> Maybe back east this is not the case.
That is correct. It is a local thing. Where there are more trails, they
are used for more commuting. I just used a part of one yesterday myself.
I normally never use the one and only trail within 5 miles of my house,
but the other day, I realized that to get to a particular store, it
would be safer to use the trail. I think if there were more urban
trails, I would use them more often, but as it is since there isn't, I
bump and grind with the traffic on a regular basis.
What bothers me about trails is the million dollar a mile price tag. A
million dollars buys a lot of sidewalks and we are short of those too,
since it seems sidewalks aren't considered "transportation" either.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:20:03
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:42:07 -0400, vey wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe it's a regional thing.
Partly. In western states, municipalities tend to be much larger. They
can do more comprehensive transportation planning, and enforce a plan over
a wide enough area to be effective. The East is carved up into too many
little jurisdictions, making it too hard to coordinate and get things
done.
>> In California, Oregon, and Washington there are a lot of these paths
>> and a lot of bike commuters that use them. Maybe back east this is not
>> the case.
> That is correct. It is a local thing. Where there are more trails, they
> are used for more commuting. I just used a part of one yesterday myself.
> I normally never use the one and only trail within 5 miles of my house,
> but the other day, I realized that to get to a particular store, it
> would be safer to use the trail. I think if there were more urban
> trails, I would use them more often, but as it is since there isn't, I
> bump and grind with the traffic on a regular basis.
In western MA, the Norwuttock Trail gets plenty of commuter traffic
between Northampton and Amherst. When my brother worked in Hadley, he
used the trail to ride from Northampton every day that the weather
allowed.
Where I live in southwest VA, our Huckleberry Trail gets lots of commuter
traffic between Blacksburg and the mall in Christiansburg. Another trail
network connects one whole side of town with the VT campus and downtown.
Dozens of little connector trails around town cut through heads of cul de
sacs, etc., to make biking around town more convenient, and a viable
transportation option that many people do choose -- which wouldn't be the
case if the bike paths were not there.
> What bothers me about trails is the million dollar a mile price tag. A
> million dollars buys a lot of sidewalks and we are short of those too,
> since it seems sidewalks aren't considered "transportation" either.
What do you think roads cost, and standard concrete sidewalks?
Sidewalks are definitely considered transportation infrastructure. As
with bike trails and riding, where sidewalks are available, people do
walk. Nationally, more "to work" commutes are on foot than by bike.
Unfortunately, the rush to build sidewalks may be why we often have "bike
paths" paralleling roads, *instead of* roads that are suitable for
cyclists. A state's road budget can be stretched further if the required
"bicycle accomodation" can be paid for by another funding source -- like a
TEA grant for a sidewalk/MUP.
Is pedestrian accommodation given higher priority than bike accommodation?
Yes. For one thing, there are more pedestrians than cyclists, but more
importantly, there are more pedestrian fatalities than cyclist fatalities.
Pedestrian safety is given higher priority because the body count is
higher.
More about cost:
Southern CA has a terrific network of bike trails, which often parallel
roads but allow cyclists to avoid major intersections and make other major
shortcuts. So they're often a better alternative than riding on adjacent
roads, which themselves may have wide shoulders and/or bike lanes. While
this network seems expensive, it gets plenty of use, more than justifying
its cost. Bike use in southern CA is probably 1-2% of all trips, and I'm
sure the bike paths and other bike accommodations cost way less than 1-2%
of transportation spending. I think that's a fair trade.
I'd love to see how many millions are actually spent on bike facilities,
vs. the *billions*, that are spent on motor vehicle infrastructure and
maintenance. I'm sure it's not even close to par for the percentage of
trips by bike. So to suggest that bike path money, even if mis-spent, is
making a dent in our bridge repair budget or whatever, is completely
ridiculous.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:48:44
From:
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sep 18, 12:35 am, Mark
<remove.mandmlj.t...@remove.comcast.this.net > wrote:
>
>
> Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
> transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
> construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
> important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
> Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation
> but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?
Certainly, almost all cycling on Multi-User Paths is NOT
transportation. FWIW, I'd be happy to stop funding recreational MUPs
from transportation dollars.
Which is not to say I want all that recreation bike path money to be
spent on motor vehicle infrastructure. I think if we took the money
spent to build pretty rail trails through the countryside, and put it
into practical on-street and transportational cycling improvements,
we'd do much, much more good.
How's this for an idea: Every time a bike trail is built, have it
surveyed four to six months after completion. If more than 75% of the
people on it are just riding for fun (as opposed to replacing a car
trip), the cost of the trail gets taken out of Parks & Recreation
budgets, not transportation budgets.
Oh, and every person who actually used their car to get their bike to
the trailhead counts double against the trail's "transportation"
status.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 14:05:49
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:48:44 -0000, in rec.bicycles.tech
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>I think if we took the money
>spent to build pretty rail trails through the countryside, and put it
>into practical on-street and transportational cycling improvements,
>we'd do much, much more good.
Personally, I love "rail trails" and tend to believe that these are,
in fact, a good investment of tax dollars. Further, some bike paths
would qualify as transportation... and some don't.
The issue in this particular discussion is that both facets are taking
a categorical interpretation of the other's position. "All bike paths
are transportation infrastructure" is an equally absurd statement as
saying "NO bike paths qualify for transportation funding". Obviously,
some do and some don't. Taken in that context, I don't find the
secretary's remarks to be particularly threatening.
Jones
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:59:40
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
In article <pt70f35ljvhh7hidsg8opsnpl7g677a8rt@4ax.com >,
!Jones <piss@off.com > wrote:
> Personally, I love "rail trails" and tend to believe that these are,
> in fact, a good investment of tax dollars.
There is an interesting issue with "rails to trails" conversions that
has come up here in Minnesota, which is that rail line rights of way
were often taken from landowners through eminent domain and assigned to
the railway with the explicit agreement that, if the railway ceased to
operate, the land taken would revert back to the owner. AFAIK in 0% of
cases in Minnesota was this complied with. In at least one case the
state attempted to argue that the bike trail was basically a placeholder
to maintain the right of way in case a rail line was ever needed again.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:24:08
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:59:40 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>There is an interesting issue with "rails to trails" conversions that
>has come up here in Minnesota, which is that rail line rights of way
>were often taken from landowners through eminent domain...
Yes, that does raise some... err... "interesting" issues.
Here in Texas, I think that the railroads owned most of their rights
of way; however, it merits a closer look.
Jones
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 22:55:22
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
> Yes, that does raise some... err... "interesting" issues.
>
> Here in Texas, I think that the railroads owned most of their rights
> of way; however, it merits a closer look.
Yes, it does. If you are a lawyer. But you don't have to be a lawyer to
figure this out.
In many cases, the grants said that the property must be used for
railroad purposes and if it wasn't, it reverted back to the government.
Thee were many "railroads" that got grants and sold the land, but never
built anything. They just sold the granted land and went bankrupt. It
was like the Iraq boondoggles in the 17th century.
Time for you to take a trip to Austin to look up those old grants, isn't
it? But if you aren't interested, I can understand that. You just want
to try and gum up the works and I understand that, too. It's easier to
speculate behind a PC than to roll up your sleeves and work.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 03:05:35
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:55:22 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
<junker@ericvey.com > wrote:
>They just sold the granted land and went bankrupt. It
>was like the Iraq boondoggles in the 17th century.
Wow!
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 05:43:30
From: autopi
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
> Actually, what I wrote is exactly what I meant. (Did you, by any
> chance, read my post?) I usually try to avoid stating another
> person's thesis, choosing instead to allow that person to do so. I
> suggest that we email the Department of Transportation at
> dot.comme...@dot.gov and let the secretary (or her representative)
> clarify her position. IMO, that approach will probably produce better
> information than presenting me with a false dilemma, don't you think?
>
I agree with Mark on this one. I read both transcripts--and NB one of
them is over 5 years old at this point--and it's pretty clear in the
recent remarks that Peters' is **contrasting** bike paths with
infrastructure ("as opposed to"). So I don't think the Salon.com
journalist was misrepresenting, I don't think it's a particularly
close call at all.
Also, if you'll note, in the Salon.com article they did try to ask
Peters to clarify her position, and she essentially refused.
Finally, "I wrote exactly what I meant" as a response to a question to
clarify is an annoying rhetorical dodge that does nothing to help
foster understanding of the issue.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:54:58
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:43:30 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech autopi
<iamnetflix@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I agree with Mark on this one. I read both transcripts--and NB one of
>them is over 5 years old at this point--and it's pretty clear in the
>recent remarks that Peters' is **contrasting** bike paths with
>infrastructure ("as opposed to"). So I don't think the Salon.com
>journalist was misrepresenting, I don't think it's a particularly
>close call at all.
>
>Also, if you'll note, in the Salon.com article they did try to ask
>Peters to clarify her position, and she essentially refused.
>
>Finally, "I wrote exactly what I meant" as a response to a question to
>clarify is an annoying rhetorical dodge that does nothing to help
>foster understanding of the issue.
I don't believe that you are interpreting her remarks correctly;
however, I respect your judgement and your right to form your own,
independent opinion. I read that she is saying that her budget was
reduced by 10% due to congressional "earmarks"; therefore, her
department wasn't responsible when the bridge fell down. Whether you
accept that or not, it makes more sense coming from a political
appointee than stating that "Peters [is] suddenly taking on bikes and
pedestrians" as the article claims.
You say that the DOT "essentially refused" to clarify, yet, the
article quoted a DOT spokesperson; that the author didn't like the
reply she received isn't quite the same thing as claiming that "the
secretary would not respond...". The DOT replied to my email within
six hours, by the way, so again I would suggest going to the primary
source; have you tried that?
I did write exactly what I meant. What the other poster was doing was
the time honored Usenet tactic known as pummeling a straw man. With
this approach, instead of addressing the person's points, the writer
constructs a new position under the cover of "clarification". If what
I wrote needs such clarification, then either I cannot write clearly
or the other person cannot read... I will leave that dilemma for you
to solve.
So, the bottom line is that I disagree that the secretary said that
"bike trails are robbing federal coffers" as the blog article
attributed. In her remarks, I heard a bureaucrat blaming congress for
not allocating him or her sufficient resources; I haven't heard that
since the last time one of them spoke... at least an hour ago. But,
then... if you take that interpretation, you really don't have
anything over which to begin shrieking about how your rights are being
violated, and that's a whole lot more fun than rational thought, in my
opinion.
Jones
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 18:35:19
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech damyth
<mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
>Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
>interesting read:
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
I think that the Secretary would be justified in claiming that she has
been misquoted. Go and read the transcript of her actual statements
at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html
You'll have to choose your phrases pretty carefully to obtain that
which Mieszkowski claims she said. "Bike paths are not
transportation," (see internal headline) is not a quote and one must
concatenate phrases from answers to several interview questions to get
it. The alleged statement would be inconsistent with other clear and
direct quotes by the Secretary of Transportation; for example:
"Bicyclists are an integral part of our nation's transportation system
and we all need to work together to develop a better, more balanced
transportation system that provides facilities and programs for
bicyclists on a routine basis." (2002)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/re020306.htm
Now, Peters is a politician (or serves one), thus one must take what
she says with a large grain of salt. OTOH, Mieszkowski is a
journalist looking for a headline and I think she crossed the line of
journalistic honesty on this one... or certainly came damn close!
Jones
|
| | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 21:35:27
From: Mark
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech damyth
> <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
>> interesting read:
>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>
> I think that the Secretary would be justified in claiming that she has
> been misquoted. Go and read the transcript of her actual statements
> at:
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html
>
> You'll have to choose your phrases pretty carefully to obtain that
> which Mieszkowski claims she said. "Bike paths are not
> transportation," (see internal headline) is not a quote and one must
> concatenate phrases from answers to several interview questions to get
> it. The alleged statement would be inconsistent with other clear and
> direct quotes by the Secretary of Transportation; for example:
>
> "Bicyclists are an integral part of our nation's transportation system
> and we all need to work together to develop a better, more balanced
> transportation system that provides facilities and programs for
> bicyclists on a routine basis." (2002)
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/re020306.htm
>
>
> Now, Peters is a politician (or serves one), thus one must take what
> she says with a large grain of salt. OTOH, Mieszkowski is a
> journalist looking for a headline and I think she crossed the line of
> journalistic honesty on this one... or certainly came damn close!
So here's an unedited excerpt (no changes on my part) from the newshour
transcript that you cite:
-----------------------------
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?
MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails,
repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that
money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
------------------------------
My evaluation: "bike paths" are one "kind of thing[]" that doesn't
qualify as "infrastructure," according to Secretary Peters, those
"things" being /contrasted/ with "infrastructure" in the last quoted
sentence.
OK, so she doesn't say "Bike paths are not transportation", just that,
in almost so many words, "Bike paths aren't [transportation]
infrastructure."
Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation
but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?
Mark "grading too many frosh essays" J.
who, by the way, has seen relatively few bike paths he likes,
but has commuted by bike almost exclusively for 28 years.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:08:56
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
"Mark" <remove.mandmlj.this@remove.comcast.this.net > wrote in message
news:G46dnZ1JXuQOyHLbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com...
> !Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:24:16 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech damyth
>> <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
>>> interesting read:
>>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>>
>> I think that the Secretary would be justified in claiming that she has
>> been misquoted. Go and read the transcript of her actual statements
>> at:
>> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html
>>
>> You'll have to choose your phrases pretty carefully to obtain that
>> which Mieszkowski claims she said. "Bike paths are not
>> transportation," (see internal headline) is not a quote and one must
>> concatenate phrases from answers to several interview questions to get
>> it. The alleged statement would be inconsistent with other clear and
>> direct quotes by the Secretary of Transportation; for example:
>>
>> "Bicyclists are an integral part of our nation's transportation system
>> and we all need to work together to develop a better, more balanced
>> transportation system that provides facilities and programs for
>> bicyclists on a routine basis." (2002)
>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/re020306.htm
>>
>>
>> Now, Peters is a politician (or serves one), thus one must take what
>> she says with a large grain of salt. OTOH, Mieszkowski is a
>> journalist looking for a headline and I think she crossed the line of
>> journalistic honesty on this one... or certainly came damn close!
>
> So here's an unedited excerpt (no changes on my part) from the newshour
> transcript that you cite:
>
> -----------------------------
> GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
> interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?
>
> MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
> museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails,
> repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that
> money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
> ------------------------------
>
> My evaluation: "bike paths" are one "kind of thing[]" that doesn't
> qualify as "infrastructure," according to Secretary Peters, those "things"
> being /contrasted/ with "infrastructure" in the last quoted sentence.
>
> OK, so she doesn't say "Bike paths are not transportation", just that, in
> almost so many words, "Bike paths aren't [transportation] infrastructure."
>
> Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
> transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
> construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
> important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure? Or
> how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation but
> cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?
>
> Mark "grading too many frosh essays" J.
> who, by the way, has seen relatively few bike paths he likes,
> but has commuted by bike almost exclusively for 28 years.
How about, "The DOT ought to do a better job of maintaining bridges.
Somebody ought to be making sure they doing essential maintenance."
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:50:08
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Mark wrote:
> OK, so she doesn't say "Bike paths are not transportation", just that,
> in almost so many words, "Bike paths aren't [transportation]
> infrastructure."
>
> Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
> transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
> construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
> important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
> Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation
> but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?
I don't know anyone that ever claimed that cycling on bike paths isn't
transportation. At least in my area, the bike paths are heavily used for
commute purposes. We've even gotten funding for them based on their
heavy transportation use. There are bike paths that go almost right to
the front doors of Google and Intel, as well as many other high-tech
companies in the area. Many non-vehicle underpasses and bridges have
been constructed primarily to aid in bicycle commuting as they often are
in areas not used for recreational riding. When surface streets have
been converted to freeways, we've gotten bicycle paths constructed along
side. Not a pleasant place to ride recreationally, but they get you to work.
If anyone claims that bicycle use of bike paths/multi-use
paths/multi-use trails doesn't have a large transportational component
then they are clueless.
Now if only we could get the pedestrians off those multi-use paths!
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:54:13
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
In article <46f00178$0$27211$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
> > OK, so she doesn't say "Bike paths are not transportation", just
> > that, in almost so many words, "Bike paths aren't [transportation]
> > infrastructure."
> >
> > Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
> > transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
> > construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
> > important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any
> > infrastructure? Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling
> > is transportation but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting
> > close to what you meant?
Reading the quote as transcribed she very clearly placed "bike paths and
trails" in contrast to transportation infrastructure. Now, does that
mean that is really what she thinks? Or did she just say it wrong as
she was talking? I don't know, not being a mind reader. Being
interviewed on camera has a tendency to bring out the worst in people's
elocution, with the bonus of having your words recorded for all time
which gives us nitpickers a chance to nitpick. Or maybe she really
does- like many people- think of bikes as toys and bike paths and trails
as frivolous wastes of money.
> I don't know anyone that ever claimed that cycling on bike paths
> isn't transportation. <snip>
You haven't listened to Minnesota politics, then. Heck, the whackos
here even have tried to claim that buses and trains aren't
transportation!
> If anyone claims that bicycle use of bike paths/multi-use
> paths/multi-use trails doesn't have a large transportational
> component then they are clueless.
And would it surprise you if that clueless person was in charge of
billions of dollars of taxpayer money? :-P
> Now if only we could get the pedestrians off those multi-use paths!
Errmmm... missing smiley?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:18:14
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Being
> interviewed on camera has a tendency to bring out the worst in people's
> elocution, with the bonus of having your words recorded for all time
> which gives us nitpickers a chance to nitpick.
Uhm, us nitpickers pick nits, not pick on other nitpicks. So what is a
nit? And why do we pick nits? And why is nitpicking important?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking
Take my word for it, people denigrate nitpicking, but it's a pretty
important job. If no one did it, you would know.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:29:06
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f00178$0$27211$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Mark wrote:
>
>> OK, so she doesn't say "Bike paths are not transportation", just that, in
>> almost so many words, "Bike paths aren't [transportation]
>> infrastructure."
>>
>> Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
>> transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
>> construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
>> important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
>> Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation but
>> cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?
>
> I don't know anyone that ever claimed that cycling on bike paths isn't
> transportation. At least in my area, the bike paths are heavily used for
> commute purposes. We've even gotten funding for them based on their heavy
> transportation use. There are bike paths that go almost right to the front
> doors of Google and Intel, as well as many other high-tech companies in
> the area. Many non-vehicle underpasses and bridges have been constructed
> primarily to aid in bicycle commuting as they often are in areas not used
> for recreational riding. When surface streets have been converted to
> freeways, we've gotten bicycle paths constructed along side. Not a
> pleasant place to ride recreationally, but they get you to work.
>
> If anyone claims that bicycle use of bike paths/multi-use paths/multi-use
> trails doesn't have a large transportational component then they are
> clueless.
>
> Now if only we could get the pedestrians off those multi-use paths!
A path I'm familiar with gets so much non motorized traffic that they built
a special path next to it just for pedestrians. The project started out as a
road maybe 30 feet wide. They then built a separte pedestrians only path a
hundred feet to the right, but they didn't abolish pedestrians from the
original path when they opened the new path. The result is that the peds
walk on whatever trail they feel like. The bikes and rollerbladers can only
go on the wide path. It's amazing and annoying to see how many people want
to walk up to four abreast on the wide part when they've got a dedicated
walking trail going to the same place only a few feet away.
The officials in charge of the park seem to know about the situation and
approve. They'll chase rollerbladers and cyclists off the walking path, but
they don't tell the walkers to get off the wide path. Who knows? Maybe they
think the occasional stroller will help to keep the speed of the bikers and
skaters down. I think the walkers just lead to a lot of unnecessary evasive
manuvers. Skaters end up riding down the wrong way while bikes pass them on
the left.
They also allow official motorized trams on this trail. The trams run down
the middle of the wide path. They're there to give rides to the infirm and
people who've given up out of exhaustion (it's a three mile trail!). Mostly
it's filled with screaming teens and people who just feel like riding a
tram.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 07:22:54
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:35:27 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech Mark
<remove.mandmlj.this@remove.comcast.this.net > wrote:
>So here's an unedited excerpt (no changes on my part) from the newshour
>transcript that you cite:
Well, I would suggest that taking an excerpt is, in fact, editing;
however, I suppose that one could have interpreted the secretary's
comment as the author of the article under discussion did. My
position was that, if one were to read the whole transcript, the
careful reader would, in my opinion, have found that her thesis was
quite different from that presented by Mieszkowski. I believe that I
cited other statements by the secretary in support of a different
interpretation.
[...]
>Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
>transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
>construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
>important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
> Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation
>but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?
Actually, what I wrote is exactly what I meant. (Did you, by any
chance, read my post?) I usually try to avoid stating another
person's thesis, choosing instead to allow that person to do so. I
suggest that we email the Department of Transportation at
dot.comments@dot.gov and let the secretary (or her representative)
clarify her position. IMO, that approach will probably produce better
information than presenting me with a false dilemma, don't you think?
Jones
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:30:59
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
close to what you meant?
>
> Actually, what I wrote is exactly what I meant. (Did you, by any
> chance, read my post?)
I'll spell it out for you.
A. The Democrats said fuel taxes ought to be raised.
B. Rather than saying there was plenty of money, "but even the bridge
experts screwup sometimes," (which they did) Peters said -
C. That not all the fuel money went for "transportation."
And she is right if you define "transportation" very narrowly. She was
trying to save face and she fell on it. Get over it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 21:21:45
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:30:59 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
<junker@ericvey.com > wrote:
>!Jones wrote:
>close to what you meant?
>>
>> Actually, what I wrote is exactly what I meant. (Did you, by any
>> chance, read my post?)
>
>I'll spell it out for you.
>A. The Democrats said fuel taxes ought to be raised.
>B. Rather than saying there was plenty of money, "but even the bridge
>experts screwup sometimes," (which they did) Peters said -
>C. That not all the fuel money went for "transportation."
>
>And she is right if you define "transportation" very narrowly. She was
>trying to save face and she fell on it. Get over it.
I don't know that it's a property of the group at large, but an
inability to read certainly appears to be endemic to the participants
of this thread!
First, what I did *not* say:
I did not state Peters' views, beliefs, or position.
I did not defend Peters.
I took no position on cycles as transportation infrastructure.
I never expressed what the Democrats said and don't care.
What I did say:
The author of the Salon.com article misinterpreted or misrepresented
Peters' comments.
Now, here is *my* interpretation of the secretary's interview; I can
sum it up in one sentence: "It's not my fault that the bridge fell
down." She went on to blame congress for "earmarking" funds to their
pet projects. (Are you following this? I'm trying to type slowly.)
She was not "picking a fight with cyclists and pedestrians" as the
article explicitly suggests. She's a political hack and an utter
jellyfish... the last thing she'd knowingly do is pick a fight of any
kind.
Here is my point: There is no reason for bicyclists to get our tight
little black panties in a big wad and thrash around shrieking about
how she is blaming us for the bridge issue. The Salon.com writer spun
that story because it made a better headline than "POLITICAL APPOINTEE
DENIES RESPONSIBILITY" Hoo... wouldn't *that* be a press stopper?
So calm down. Read the posting to which you're replying completely
and carefully before you start typing... that might help.
Jones
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 11:45:10
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
>
> The author of the Salon.com article misinterpreted or misrepresented
> Peters' comments.
Appears that Peters has dropped trails and lighthouses from her speech.
Either that, or the reporter missed it. Her new thing is an unnamed
baseball stadium, but I wonder . . . is she saying that the money
collected by the fuel tax is going to pay for a baseball stadium, or
that Congress just earmarked GR money that way?
http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/articles/0918gl-nwvforum0919-ON.html
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 22:43:17
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
"It's not my fault that the bridge fell
> down."
If she had stopped there, that would have been good. But she couldn't
help herself, she just had to keep going.
>There is no reason for bicyclists to get our tight
>little black panties in a big wad
I'm calm. She's the one that looks like a dope. I mean, how can anyone
defend what she said? One point five percent of her budget spent on
trails undid it all? That's just about the dumbest thing I can think of
to say. And the longer you try to defend her, the more dopey you look.
Give it up dude, even conservatives like me have given up on this
administration. Especially conservatives like me. The more you flail
around, the more ammo you feed the Dems.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 03:00:46
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:43:17 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
<junker@ericvey.com > wrote:
> I mean, how can anyone defend what she said?
I don't know. Would you mind finding a quote, written by me, that
defends what she said?
And, look... as soon as you do, get right back to us, OK?
Jones
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 10:09:15
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
!Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:43:17 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
> <junker@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
>> I mean, how can anyone defend what she said?
>
> I don't know. Would you mind finding a quote, written by me, that
> defends what she said?
>
> And, look... as soon as you do, get right back to us, OK?
>
> Jones
>
You complain that she is misquoted, that the reporter is dishonest and
that's not "defending what she said?" Could have fooled me.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 14:21:11
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:09:15 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
<junker@ericvey.com > wrote:
>!Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:43:17 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech vey
>> <junker@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I mean, how can anyone defend what she said?
>>
>> I don't know. Would you mind finding a quote, written by me, that
>> defends what she said?
>>
>> And, look... as soon as you do, get right back to us, OK?
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>You complain that she is misquoted, that the reporter is dishonest and
>that's not "defending what she said?" Could have fooled me.
I believe that I asked for a quote with a citation; everyone is
welcome to his or her opinion; however, I stand by what I actually
wrote, not what someone thinks I wrote... some people do not read very
carefully.
Jones
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 11:08:05
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
damyth wrote:
> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> interesting read:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>
See
"http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1189934533174290.xml&coll=3"
Even in Alabama they want more bike paths, and even favored expanding
the helmet law to adults.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 18:47:23
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Jim Flom wrote:
>
> damyth wrote:
>
> > Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> > interesting read:
> >http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>
> Her exact comments:
> GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
> interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?
>
> MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
> museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing
> lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being
> spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
>
> and later...
>
> GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?
>
> MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of
> the current spending that is going to projects that really are not
> transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being
> spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some is being
> spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.
>
> In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes back
> to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER. I'd
> love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
> didn't pick up on it.
You know, I'd be happy to give up tax support for bike-only paths
(I've never actually seen one, only multi-use paths) in return for
bike lanes and sidewalks on what are now limited-access freeways.
Deal?
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 16:03:50
From: Jim Flom
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
"damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote in message
news:1189880656.838032.111020@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> interesting read:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>
Her exact comments:
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?
MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing
lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being
spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
and later...
GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?
MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of
the current spending that is going to projects that really are not
transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being
spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some is being
spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.
In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes back
to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER. I'd
love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 13:50:30
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Jim Flom wrote:
I'd
> love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
> didn't pick up on it.
$395 million.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm
1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 22:06:10
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On 2007-09-16, vey <junker@ericvey.com > wrote:
> Jim Flom wrote:
> I'd
>> love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
>> didn't pick up on it.
>
> $395 million.
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm
>
> 1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
> because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm
Thank goodness we have no problem spending $2billion *PER WEEK* in
Iraq!
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 07:11:14
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-09-16, vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Flom wrote:
>> I'd
>>> love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
>>> didn't pick up on it.
>> $395 million.
>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm
>>
>> 1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
>> because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm
>
> Thank goodness we have no problem spending $2billion *PER WEEK* in
> Iraq!
>
Oh, no! The "I" word. Quickest way to sidetrack a decent discussion. How
does it go? "We are the richest nation on earth. It is ridiculous to say
we can't afford this. It isn't even costing 2% of our GNP."
|
| | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 12:56:17
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
"Jim Flom" <jim.flomREMOVE@telus.net > wrote in message
news:GtcHi.51829$bO6.42298@edtnps89...
> "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:1189880656.838032.111020@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
>> interesting read:
>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>>
>
> Her exact comments:
> GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
> interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?
>
> MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
> museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails,
> repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that
> money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
>
> and later...
>
> GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?
>
> MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of
> the current spending that is going to projects that really are not
> transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is
> being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some
> is being spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.
>
> In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes
> back to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER.
> I'd love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad
> Ifill didn't pick up on it.
>
Let's face it. We cyclists are selfish vermin stealing the very breath out
of motor's mouths.
We should be ashamed.
|
| |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 07:00:36
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
damyth wrote:
> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> interesting read:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
What do you expect from a Bush appointee? She's a Republican.
|
| |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 15:22:41
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
damyth wrote:
> Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
> interesting read:
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/
>
Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of course.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Sep 2007 21:03:19
From: george
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
vey <junker@ericvey.com > wrote in news:fchb85$l0v$1@news.datemas.de:
> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of course.
Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 04:09:14
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
"george" <president@whitehouse.gov > wrote in message
news:Xns99AC8EFF9C54Bs321@192.160.13.20...
> vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in news:fchb85$l0v$1@news.datemas.de:
>> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
>> course.
>
> Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
> that
> are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.
During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 15:32:19
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
> "george" <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote
>> vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in news:fchb85$l0v$1@news.datemas.de:
>>> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
>>> course.
>> Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
>> that
>> are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.
Greens wrote:
> During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
> it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.
As with the contribution of forests to acid rain, the truth got lost in
a snappy headline. Twice.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 16:53:41
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>> "george" <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote
>>> vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in news:fchb85$l0v$1@news.datemas.de:
>>>> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
>>>> course.
>>> Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same
>>> folks that
>>> are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.
>
> Greens wrote:
>> During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused
>> pollution. Now it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.
>
> As with the contribution of forests to acid rain, the truth got lost in
> a snappy headline. Twice.
Why don't you read the Salon article and avoid the headline. Then you
can judge for yourself whether the "truth" has gotten lost. Don't
overlook my link to the amount of Federal money being spent on the oft
mentioned trails. Here, I'll post it again:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 07:01:56
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Greens wrote:
> "george" <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns99AC8EFF9C54Bs321@192.160.13.20...
>> vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in news:fchb85$l0v$1@news.datemas.de:
>>> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
>>> course.
>> Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
>> that
>> are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.
>
> During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
> it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.
I think it was that Reagan was once again confusing reality with
something that was in a movie. He once saw a polluting tree in a film
and thought it was real.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 07:47:18
From: Fritz
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:01:56 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:
>Greens wrote:
>> "george" <president@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99AC8EFF9C54Bs321@192.160.13.20...
>>> vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in news:fchb85$l0v$1@news.datemas.de:
>>>> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
>>>> course.
>>> Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
>>> that
>>> are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.
>>
>> During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
>> it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.
>
>I think it was that Reagan was once again confusing reality with
>something that was in a movie. He once saw a polluting tree in a film
>and thought it was real.
Read it.
http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_trees.html
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Sep 2007 11:18:12
From: vey
Subject: Re: Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?
|
Fritz wrote:
>
> Read it.
> http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_trees.html
"For example, biogenics are estimated to account for 22 percent of all
VOCs emitted in the woody Houston-Galveston area, but only 12 percent in
the arid El Paso area."
Geez, so *that's* why Houston stinks so much more than El Paso. That's
one of life's mysteries solved.
|
|
