OK, then DEATH to any caught NOT on the bike path...
Posted on 10/28/2019 11:42:26 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
So he could pocket the campaign donations when he dropped out.
How do you keep runners & walkers from using them?
Yeah? Are you sure of that? What makes you think that bicyclists in general are motorists?
Roads, for the most part are financed with gasoline and diesel fuel taxes. I didn't know that bicyclists bought those fuels. In some instances, cities kick in additional funds by local referendum, usually supported by property taxes or even an add-on to the sales tax for special projects. There you got me - that sales tax for special projects. And then there are toll roads that are financed by the tolls collected. But in general, bicyclists do NOT pay the taxes that are used to build the bike lanes. And the costs to build them are WAY disproportionate to the number of users they serve compared to roadways used by automobiles.
This is a campaign which has captured ALL Leftist mayors.
Peduto here in Pittsburgh. Buttigieg in South Bend. Many others.
A back-door way to get rid of automobiles by making the roads they currently drive on unusable.
Do you seriously believe that even devoted cyclists don’t EVER drive???
Get real.
No I don’t, but “generally”? Their paying taxes for the roadway their cars drive on these days doesn’t even pay the maintenance costs on those roads. And then you want those taxes to pay for bicycle lanes. Get real!
There are a lot of people here with "car on the brain syndrome" who seem to have forgotten that we invented roads … well, seven or eight thousand years before we invented automobiles. And many of our cities still today have downtown cores and residential neighborhoods that were built before cars arrived. In such areas, the cars are the interlopers, not the pedestrians or bicyclists. Or even the horse carriages (just to illustrate the point), where those still exist as tourist attractions.
Roads began as footpaths. As time passed and technology evolved, footpaths were upgraded for carts, wagons and carriages. They were used by all comers. People walked on them. Farmers drove cattle to market on them. Wagons shared with carriages shared with pedestrians shared with bicyclists, who also arrived before automobiles.
Cars at first fit with this intermodal traffic. As cars increased in size and speed, however, they became a hazard. We eventually began to separate classes of traffic on different classes of roads, although on quiet neighborhood streets and rural roads, everybody still coexists.
This digression has a point beyond painting a nostalgic word picture. Roads are the connecting corridors that allow us to move around our communities. If roads become the exclusive domain of automobiles, they become barriers to all other forms of transit. This isolates people who don't have cars, and it cripples myriad desirable activities ranging from kids walking to schools to seniors taking a walk to bicycling to joggers and dog walkers. Remember: pedestrian fatalities from automobiles far exceed bicycle deaths; this isn't just about bicycling.
The point here is that the purpose of "roads" is to allow people to get around. This is NOT the same thing as "maximizing the speed of commuter traffic." We have multiple users and multiple modes of transit, and the goal is to create attractive, livable cities that allow people to move freely, comfortably, efficiently, and safely. We should be thinking in a systems approach, and we need to be thinking intermodal.
The more congested an area is -- the downtown core, close-in residential neighborhoods, high-density suburbs -- the more important it becomes to accommodate multiple forms of transit. Our major cities are choking on cars already. Building more arterial roads to increase the speed at which ever-more people reach the gridlock zone is not a very good solution.
We need to build more neighborhoods in which it is possible -- and convenient -- to live without a car. The more people who can walk or bike, the better. The more people who can take mass transit, the better. Most people may still choose to drive, and that's fine, but roads should not be built in such a way that they effectively preclude other options.
This ain't rocket science and it's not hugely expensive if design standards are set correctly at the beginning. Wide shoulders and wide sidewalks can solve a lot of problems. Where space permits, a bike lane or off-road bike path may be the solution. Neighborhood connectors would help in many areas; bicyclists and pedestrians generally don't want to be on the arterial road, even if there's a bike lane, but they are forced there because there is no other practicable way to get from A to B. It's far better to walk or ride a block or two off the major highway, on a quiet residential street, provided that the cul de sac design doesn't continually force you back out into the kill zone, or impose a ridiculously long detour. Streams are barriers to all forms of traffic and bridges become chokepoints. ALL bridges should have sidewalks/bikepaths connecting safely to walking/biking routes on either side. In many places, a little intelligent signage would go a long way; there are signs everywhere telling motorists where to go, and giving cyclists a hint every now and then would help. People should be able to CROSS major highways without getting killed and crossing points shouldn't be prohibitively distant for pedestrians; put in more stoplights for at grade crossings or build more overpasses and underpasses. Etc.
A lot of this stuff is not expensive if done sequentially as an orderly part of the overall maintenance and rehabbing plan. It's a matter of getting the design standard right and not building roads whose design precludes non-motorized transit. Roads are supposed to be connectors. They shouldn't be barriers.
My pet peeve, just to illustrate the perverse dynamics that poison the discussion, is roads that (1) once had a sidewalk, and were thus accessible to all; (2) lost their sidewalks and shoulders to create a new traffic lane; but (3) no replacement infrastructure was ever built. So a formerly open transit route gets closed for all but cars. The cars were the latecomers, but they shoulder all traditional users aside, make pedestrian travel all but impossible, and degrade the neighborhood. That's an impact that the automotive lobby should take responsibility for mitigating. If you want to slash YOUR commuter roads through OTHER PEOPLE's neighborhoods, you should replace the infrastructure you destroy in the process. Pay for the blankety-blank wide sidewalk (if you don't want to pay for a separate bike lane) and the walking/biking overpass (if you don't want another stoplight). Motorists are not entitled to degrade other people's neighborhoods and then claim that it's not their problem, because replacement infrastructure is not a proper part of the road construction budget.
Some bike paths -- the ones with the really high coolness factors -- should probably be funded through the parks and recreation budget. But the generic "moving around the neighborhood" stuff is a matter of building complete roads.
Sorry for the length. Shorthand: systems approach; intermodal transit options; livable, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods; people who choose to live 30 miles away from their jobs are the lowest, not the highest, priority.
An ebike I saw today outside a mall,
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48979831058_e60ea08205_k.jpg
Eventually? It happens every day.
You seem to be under the impression that cyclists ride to the exclusion of driving, which is utter nonsense. They probably drive a little less, but that hardly means they don’t drive at all.
And no single driver’s taxes pay for the roads they drive on individually; roads are a collective effort. People who don’t drive on a road at all may be paying for it.
My kids are all out of college. I don’t use public schools. I’m still paying for them. I’ve never called the fire dept or the cops. I’m still paying for them. I have never (and will never) attended a pro football game but I’m paying for a new stadium I never wanted.
You don’t use bike lanes. That doesn’t mean you’re exempt from paying for them.
It’s one of those thing you have to build first before the roads.
That’s why it works in Amsterdam, but it will never work in New York.
(Even though Old New York was once New Amsterdam)
OK, then DEATH to any caught NOT on the bike path...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.