Merging two topics for efficiency

http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/

On 3/10/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/

Yikes! Tea party is our enemy. Only Obama can save us. NY Times must be
believed.

This sort of article and post makes me want to destroy my bicycle and
deny ever having ridden it.

On Mar 10, 12:48*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-...

Let's merge ALL the non-TECH threads.

DR

On 3/10/2011 1:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/


Not a mention of the real arguments against paint on the ground:
ghettoization of cyclists and that vehicular cycling works better.

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

On 3/10/2011 5:27 PM, slide wrote:
On 3/10/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/


Yikes! Tea party is our enemy. Only Obama can save us. NY Times must be
believed.

This sort of article and post makes me want to destroy my bicycle and
deny ever having ridden it.

Right! The problem, as I see it, is that we ever let our meddling,
over-reaching communist government start building roads in the first
place. If we need roads, the free market system will provide!

On 3/10/2011 10:14 PM, Fred Fredburger wrote:
On 3/10/2011 5:27 PM, slide wrote:
On 3/10/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/



Yikes! Tea party is our enemy. Only Obama can save us. NY Times must be
believed.

This sort of article and post makes me want to destroy my bicycle and
deny ever having ridden it.

Right! The problem, as I see it, is that we ever let our meddling,
over-reaching communist government start building roads in the first
place. If we need roads, the free market system will provide!

+6.02x10^23

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

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.

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.

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

On 3/11/2011 1:13 PM, Jay Beattie 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.

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.

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?


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"? 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. 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.

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?

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

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.