wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 7, 2009 20:04:45 GMT -5
Think about it: More than 50% of working Americans live less than 5 miles from home, an easy bicycle commuteThanks to Rep. Earl Blumenauer for this searing insight!
Hopefully this howler won't overshadow the eminent sense Blumenauer talks in this article on investing in bicycle infrastructure.
In Australia, sales of new bicycles have outstripped new cars for several years. There is no doubt that people want to use bicycles for transport; they just need governments to provide infrastructure to make bicycle commuting a bit safer and more practical.
Cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam are showing the innovative ways in which bicycles can be integrated into the overall transport system. All governments need to look hard at what can be done in this area. Rep. Earl BlumenauerPosted February 6, 2009 | 06:44 PM (EST)No, Seriously: Republicans Don't Get ItWith this latest attempt to strip bike finding from the recovery bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with their pathologically short-sighted attacks on bicycles. To their detriment, they are continuing their trend from last Congress of using the most economical, energy-efficient, and healthy forms of transportation as their whipping post. Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want. Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects-- therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent. We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal. There are tens of millions of American cyclists and even more who want their children to be able to bike and walk to school safely and therefore support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. American families have indicated time and again in the passage of bond measures across the country that they favor spending on alternative transportation, such as bicycles and mass transit, over spending on mere highway capacity. Americans want real solutions to the economic crisis, not just a band-aid fix. These investments will stimulate our economy now - when it counts and point our nation toward the economic and environmental realities of the future. Recent transportation surveys indicate that 52% of Americans want to bike more than they do now - but don't, because of the lack of safe and connected bicycle facilities. Think about it: More than 50% of working Americans live less than 5 miles from home, an easy bicycle commute. Already more than 490,000 Americans bike to work; in Portland, 8% of downtown workers are bicycle commuters. Individually, they are saving $1,825 in auto-related costs, reducing their carbon emissions by 128 pounds per year, saving 145 gallons of gasoline, avoiding 50 hours of being stuck in traffic, burning 9,000 calories, reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke by 50%, and enjoying 14% fewer claims on their health insurance. Nationally, if we doubled the current 1% of all trips by bike to 2%, we would collectively save more 693 million gallons of gasoline - that's more than $5 billion dollars - each year. From 2007 - 2008, bicyclists reduced the amount Americans drive by 100 million miles. Bicycling also has immediate and direct benefits for communities that invest in bicycle paths, bike lanes, trails, and secure bicycle parking. For each $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs and between $50 and $100 million in local economic benefits. Some communities are already showing the results of these investments. After investing less than 1% of their total transportation budget in bicycle facilities in the past eight years, the City of Portland has seen a 144% increase in bicycle use - and the growth of a $90 million bicycle industry that has added nearly 50 new businesses in just the past two years. I can think of no other transportation investment that provides more benefits to American communities who so desperately need: more jobs, reduced transportation costs, increased personal health, a cleaner environment, reduced carbon footprint, and greater community livability. It's time the Republicans got the point about what Americans want. Investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure will help us create jobs and build healthier more livable communities for the future - these projects are the gifts that keep on giving. Copyright © 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | Archive | User Agreement | Privacy | Comment Policy | About Us | Powered by Movable Type www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-earl-blumenauer/no-seriously-republicans_b_164822.html
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 7, 2009 20:55:47 GMT -5
What exactly are the infrastructure improvement that you would suggest? Do they have those stupid bicycle lanes like we have here, where bike lanes are a little strip on the side of a 45 mph highway? They even run between the car lanes and turn lanes. Guys who use these things have a death wish if you ask me. Crazy bikers.
Some of them use sidewalks even though it's illegal, but it's the safest bet. But I can't think of anywhere I would want to commute to (within five miles) that doesn't already have a sidewalk for those so inclined.
BTW, what are we going to do to tax bikers to pay for these things? We have fuel taxes to pay for roads. How do we tax bikers to recover the costs? Tax Wheaties?
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 8, 2009 1:17:25 GMT -5
Your first para sums it up as to why cyclists need investment in infrastructure to protect them from drivers with attitudes like yours. Cyclists who use marked bike paths are not crazy, they are law-abiding road users who drivers need to learn to live with.
If the infrastucture provided is so bad you'd have to be crazy to use it, obviously further investment is needed. Cyclists have rights too.
The cities I mentioned are doing innovative things like improving the physical separation between cars and bike lanes, providing a fleet of bicycles for people to use as they need, etc. London is even talking about dedicated freeways for bicycles, which would be a massive step in the right direction.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 8, 2009 1:21:03 GMT -5
Some of them use sidewalks even though it's illegal, but it's the safest bet. But I can't think of anywhere I would want to commute to (within five miles) that doesn't already have a sidewalk for those so inclined. Law-abiding cyclists such as myself do not ride on the footpath. As you say, it's illegal. Si it cannot be considered as infrastructure for cyclists. Cyclists already pay taxes through things like car registration, yet do not have the same impact on the roads as people who drive all the time. Fuel taxes used to pay for roads are for ALL road users. Pay for investment in cycling by reducing investment in facilities for gas-guzzling unhealthy motor transport.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 8, 2009 5:59:14 GMT -5
What exactly are the infrastructure improvement that you would suggest? Do they have those stupid bicycle lanes like we have here, where bike lanes are a little strip on the side of a 45 mph highway? They even run between the car lanes and turn lanes. Guys who use these things have a death wish if you ask me. Crazy bikers. What we have in Lincoln (and many other British towns and cities) is shared pedestrian/cyclist pavements. They are clearly marked as such (so pedestrians do not get a nasty shock) and have a marked footpath and a marked cycle path. We even have traffic lights for the cyclists so they can cross junctions with no cars moving. Wayne is right about the narrow strips along the side of car lanes - particularly when people park their cars in them! For cyclist safety it is necessary to have a kerb between the cycles and cars - which is why we are now going over to the shared pedestrian/cycle lanes.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 8, 2009 7:05:16 GMT -5
The strips along the side of the roads are not worth the cost of the paint. What we want is MORE dedicated cycle routes (we already have some) which are utterly free of motor traffic. When my daughter lived in Beeston, a suburb of the city of Nottingham she used ti bike the three miles to the city centre bank where she worked as being by far the quickest way to get there. She was fortunate though that she could use the traffic free canal towpath for most of this journey. Waynes ideal world though makes me shudder to even contemplate.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 8, 2009 7:25:38 GMT -5
We have the Sustrans cycle path from Lincoln to Boston which I am intending to attempt when I am fit enough. Its quite a long way, and I would have to cycle back as well, so not for a few more months.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 8, 2009 8:30:34 GMT -5
It has almost become a tradition that youngest grandson and I bike the High Peak track and the Tissington track each winter/spring one at each half term. we cheat though, as wife drops us and our bikes at one end and then meets us at the other so we only have a journey one way, a journey of about 14 miles. I am planning to get back in the saddle a little more this coming year than of late and have been passing th recent days when cabined up by the weather in contemplating a few days biking using bed and breakfast accomodation sometime this coming spring.
|
|
Calluna
Super Duper Member
I think there's someone on the other side...
Posts: 1,005
|
Post by Calluna on Feb 8, 2009 11:46:19 GMT -5
I would love to see more bicycle paths constructed. I live in a college town, with limited parking, and it would be an ideal place for people to bike, yet anyone who does is putting their life on the line. We don't even have proper shoulders on many of the roads...it's hairy enough for two cars to pass one another, let alone if there were a bike or pedestrian trying to share the road.
Granted, my own commute would not improve with bicycle paths, because the mountain roads are too steep, but the roads on the other side of town where I'm considering moving are much flatter. Not that I've been on a bike since childhood, so may not start biking, but I'd be happy with mixed bike/pedestrian paths so I could walk around more easily. We do have some nice rail trails with bike paths for recreational biking, but it always strikes me as quite odd that there are no bike paths on the roads leading there, so people who want to bike on the trails end up driving their bikes to the trail parking area and starting from there.
And, of course, the other problem is that once you get to campus, trying to find a bike rack in a secure place doesn't seem like an easy feat. What happened to bike racks? When I was a kid, the grocery stores even had bike racks outside of them for people to secure their bikes while in shopping. I never see that anymore. You have to resort to securing your bike to some light post where it's in the way, if there's even a post to be found and not just wide pillars/columns that you can't get a lock or chain around.
Even as a driver, I would like to have designated bike lanes on the roads. I admit, I do not like sharing roads with bikes if they have to be in the regular car lanes...it's dangerous for both of us! And, unless they are Olympic athletes, they are not going to pedal as fast as I can drive, so getting stuck crawling behind a bike when there isn't room to pass is really frustrating. If they just had a well-maintained shoulder or bike lane (a shoulder filled with debris is not well-maintained for the sake of bicycling), then we could all be happy.
And, I think Wayne's observation about bike lanes being haphazardly placed is an apt one as well. This is the problem with many existing bike lanes; they were stuck wherever there was space on a road, and don't necessarily make any sense from a safety perspective. On one section of road, they're along the curb, then they zig-zag around metered parking spaces for cars, then inexplicably wind up along the center divider (which I think is the worst place for a bike lane). The cyclists then need to be zigzagging across traffic to follow the bike lines. AND, they really need some sort of traffic regulation at intersections that accounts for bikes. When someone is in the bike lane planning to go straight, and cars have a right turn lane with a green light, it's a recipe for disaster. Of course, when I was taught the rules of the road for bicycles back in elementary school, we were taught that you get off the bike at intersections and walk it across, following the pedestrian signals. NOBODY follows that rule, though. Perhaps having a push-button signal for bikes at the more hairy intersections would allow them to safely get across when there's too much traffic to navigate without an extra signal.
It's interesting reading the comments from the cyclists here, and see that after all these years of banishing bicycles from the pedestrian sidewalks, the direction where taking is to again move the bikes more to the pedestrian "lanes." In some areas, there is too much pedestrian traffic to share walkways with bikes, but I do agree that THAT side of the road is the place for bikes to be. I don't know that there is always room for it, but the ideal configuration, in my mind, would be, working from the middle of the road outward toward sidewalks (so whichever side of the road you drive on, this will still make sense)...car lanes, then parking spaces (such as metered parking areas), curb about 2 ft wide (where meters for parking can be mounted and people feeding meters have a place to stand), bike/skateboarding/rollerblading lane (this would be a lane that anything on wheels that's not a motor vehicle could use...and maybe those segway things), then pedestrian lane/sidewalk. And then have bicyclists and pedestrians sharing crossing signals at intersections.
The difficulty is that this requires more space than exists on many roads. When storefronts already butt right onto sidewalks, and there's already no median left in the road, there's really no place to expand to add the bike lane...and these are usually the areas with enough pedestrian traffic that dedicated bike lanes are needed and really can't just share the sidewalks. But I think it should be required in any new development, and start building them anyplace there is still the room for it before that space is gone.
I think people might be amazed in small towns like the one I live in...if they made everything more bike friendly, people might stop complaining about the congestion and lack of parking in our tiny downtown area, because people who live close by could bike instead.
|
|
|
Post by gr8designer on Feb 8, 2009 12:13:28 GMT -5
Bicycles definitely do not belong on the sidewalk! As a cyclist, I want to be on the road, not hitting a groove every two revolutions of the wheel, not dodging pedestrians who may or may not want to get out of the way. Riding on the sidewalk would just slow me down. Here in northeast Texas there are few bike lanes, and the ones that do exist are in the city. The rules of the road require that cyclists ride on the road and follow the same rules that cars do. We must stop at stop lights, we must signal turns, lane changes, stops; and we must make our left turns from the left turn lane - that's where things get hairy. I find many drivers here are alert to bicycles and are happy to let us cross traffic to get into the turn lane. Truckers are especially accomodating in this regard. Unfortunately there are always those who think cyclists don't belong on the road and either refuse to let us in or actively try to scare us or run us off the road. Riding in a downtown area is especially dangerous because bicycles are usually riding along beside parked cars, and people tend to open their car doors without looking. This is disastrous for a cyclist. We on our bikes must always be alert and vigilant to protect ourselves. It is our responsibility to obey the rules of the road for our own safety. A more comprehensive cycling infrastructure would improve the situation for cyclists AND for car drivers.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 8, 2009 12:42:40 GMT -5
I would like to say a few words about our shared pedestrian/cycle lanes. We do not have them where pedestrian traffic is high - we use them where car traffic is high and pedestrian traffic is low. Indeed, just about all the places where we get a lot of pedestrians (town high streets and environs) we have no cars at all and no cycles either officially. I cannot think of anywhere in England where cars are allowed into principal shopping areas.
We have the joint lanes in places like the road from Brigg to Wrawby in North Lincolnshire - lots of cars, few pedestrians or cyclists - or in our Lincoln trading estate (Tritton Road) where cars are parked and people are just walking between shops - few pedestrians on the road through the estate.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 8, 2009 13:20:08 GMT -5
There is no single solution to the problem nor should there be as it is only by being sensitive to the peculirities of a given place that its needs can be met. In genaral terms though what is needed is a recognition of the cycle as a legitimate form of transport and this is not always the case especially when it comes to the allocation of finance for traffic schemes. There has been an improvement in this in recent years with many town centre car parks providing secure lockers for bikes. These are also a feature of our local hospitals too. The shortage of cycle stands you can chain your mount to is chronic in towns though especially when you consider how little they cost. I suppose John and I are lucky because both of us live in areas that are criss crossed with reasonably well surfaced quiet rural roads. Riding along these can be a delight. By comparison riding along many of main roads is an ordeal.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 8, 2009 14:36:53 GMT -5
"I would like to say a few words about our shared pedestrian/cycle lanes. We do not have them where pedestrian traffic is high - we use them where car traffic is high and pedestrian traffic is low. Indeed, just about all the places where we get a lot of pedestrians (town high streets and environs) we have no cars at all and no cycles either officially. I cannot think of anywhere in England where cars are allowed into principal shopping areas."
In our area, which isn't terribly densely populated, that's what our sidewalks have evolved into. There are few pedestrians- I can ride four miles to Home Depot, and usually won't have to move over for a pedestrian. There's no way I would ride on the road with a 45 mph speed limit and people routinely doing 55 or 60 blasting past me.
So I don't see the need to dump money into putting a bunch of bike paths down. We already have the sidewalks. All we have to do is make them pedestrian/cyclist routes. In more urbanized areas we can ride on the roads, because cars are already going slow and presumably watching for pedestrians. In rural areas there's hardly anything to hit but cows. There are dangers, but I don't see anything cutting a bike lane into the road does to solve them.
The only change I can see that would be a good idea would be to replace sidewalks as they age with asphalt. And when expanding we can use asphalt as well. It's cheaper, can be more mechanized and is smoother to ride, walk or run on. This would actually use less tax money than we're spending now.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 8, 2009 14:38:39 GMT -5
As for bike racks, isn't that what street signs, trees, light poles, etc. are for? Bike racks wouldn;t hurt, but I think it would be up to businesses to provide those for customers where there is demand, just as they provide parking lots.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 8, 2009 15:06:55 GMT -5
but I think it would be up to businesses to provide those for customers where there is demand, just as they provide parking lots.
No that is why I pay local taxes so that they can be spent on providing such amenities for the enjoyment of the community Strangely enough this is to do with my attitude to freedom. I feel this liberates me from the agenda of the said businesses.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 8, 2009 15:17:31 GMT -5
I don't see how the agenda of the local businesses would work against that. They already have to build parking facilities- it is in their best interest to do so. Bike racks are even better because they save valuable square footage- you can fit ten or fifteen bikes (10-15 customers) in the space it takes to park a car that may only bring a single customer to the business.
Besides, in many cases, they are required to provide racks/parking by the municipality they reside in.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 8, 2009 15:19:47 GMT -5
That's what they do in my area. Less taxes. Cheap. I like that.
For that matter, I'd rather save even more money and just tie my bike off to a street light, as I do with businesses that are grandfathered in.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Feb 8, 2009 15:26:23 GMT -5
On NPR they had an hour about Amsterdam, and apparently they're really big on bikes and public transportation... for example, you can ride your bike to the train station, they have a thee-story(!) bike storage facility, you get on the train that comes literally every two minutes, and you get to work. And the people are happy with it.
It's not that stupid an idea. It's just... "different." And worth looking into.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 8, 2009 15:29:08 GMT -5
Yes Wayne but I have no desire to live in a primitive fashion when I have no need to do so. Therefore I do not begrudge paying for the social furniture. The fredom thing is simple, the store owner provides parking with his store in mind. The local authority should provide such facilities with the needs of the public in mind.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 8, 2009 20:46:27 GMT -5
For that matter, I'd rather save even more money and just tie my bike off to a street light, as I do with businesses that are grandfathered in. Yeah that's what my son did with his bike a while ago. Thieves stole one wheel and bent the bike in half trying to snap the D-lock. Result? More damage done to the bike than it was worth, and I was up for a brand new bike. Cyclists are legitimate road users. We have rights. We should not have to put up with half-assed, unsafe measures purely to save people a few bucks.
|
|
Calluna
Super Duper Member
I think there's someone on the other side...
Posts: 1,005
|
Post by Calluna on Feb 8, 2009 23:48:26 GMT -5
That's what they do in my area. Less taxes. Cheap. I like that. For that matter, I'd rather save even more money and just tie my bike off to a street light, as I do with businesses that are grandfathered in. Oy vey! This is the problem, they leave people to have to find places to chain up a bike that are neither secure, nor out of the way. And, what happens when there aren't any light posts? Or when there are more bicyclists than posts? I don't care how local municipalities figure out how to pay for it. If they have zoning laws that require business of particular sizes to provide parking areas for cars, then they can make the businesses pay for the bike racks too. Heck, with some parking lots, you see not only spaces reserved for handicapped people, but elderly people, pregnant women, people with small children, etc., so why not use a couple of those spots for bike racks instead? (I haven't really figured out why people with small children need to park closer to the store anyway...kids are the ones with all the energy to walk further than the rest of us!) And, if I were to start biking, and shelled out several hundred dollars for a bike, I wouldn't want to be hoping for a narrow enough light post or road sign to lock it up. Around here, most of the stores have big brick pillars, not posts, in front of the buildings. No place to store a bike at all. And why should the pedestrians then have to trip over bikes haphazardly chained to random poles and posts rather than providing a designated place for them? Even better, put the rack inside the store entrance so the bikes stay dry if it rains and so they can be seen so are less prone to getting stolen...hard to cut the lock off a bike when you're in plain view of shoppers constantly entering and exiting. And, yes, Pax, it's amazing what the Netherlands has for accomodations for bike parking. Apparently, pretty much everyone there bikes, especially in Amsterdam. Davis, CA is also very bike friendly. That was the first place I ever saw people with little trailers for their bikes (they're more commonplace now). It's basically just a little cart with a cover that goes behind the bike and people there were using them for everything from toting kids to carrying their groceries or school books. I mean, if you're going to bike to the grocery store, you also need a way to get those groceries home when you need to buy more than just a few things at a time. Those little trailers are great ideas for that! I wonder if they stabilize the bike too...sort of like keeping training wheels on? Might help those of us who haven't been on a bike in a long time and are worried about being wobbly to get on one again. The ones I've seen recently have handles on them, so you can push it like a cart or stroller once you're at your destination. Just use it as your shopping cart, so you don't have to leave it attached to the bike and in the way. Seems simple and sensible. You're still not going to get me to bike on the mountains around here unless you put the bike path up on a suspended bridge that skips the hills. I was looking across from the hospital toward my house the other day and realized that if I didn't have to drive up and down winding mountain roads, my 5 mile drive might only be 2 miles. I've seen one or two people try biking up my road, and they look really fit (I don't think anyone but a serious cyclist would even consider trying), but still seriously struggle on the uphills.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 9, 2009 0:15:54 GMT -5
"Might help those of us who haven't been on a bike in a long time and are worried about being wobbly to get on one again."
Don't worry- you'll pick it up again really quick. Just like riding a bike. As for the deepening controversy, this statement right here says a lot:
"There is no single solution to the problem nor should there be as it is only by being sensitive to the peculirities of a given place that its needs can be met."
If someone cut down a sign pole around here to steal a bike, 99.9% of the time the sign post is going to be the biggest replacement cost. We don't have a lot of people riding bikes costing "hundreds of dollars" to the store. Almost every business, gov't office or park I go to has a bike rack out front, and if you added the value of all the bikes in the rack, usually the bike rack cost more than the bikes. Not that there aren't rich people around here who ride bikes, but they usually do it for recreation. The bike racks are usually used by the Mexican laborers or the kid working in the store. Assuming that there are any bikes in the rack- the only rack I find consistently being used is the one in front of our Wal-mart. And I've never, ever found a rack that was so full I couldn't put my bike on it.
More bike racks, etc. may be a good idea in some areas. Those localities ought to work on it. But we don't need a big federal push to shell out money for it. By tacking this to the recovery bill, the federal government is going to dump money into places that don't need it, places like Stuart, Florida.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 9, 2009 6:13:45 GMT -5
Wayne who says that Stuart Florida dosn't need such money? You yourself mentioned the problems of riding along roads where you share with speeding traffic. I should have thought this was a prime example of a problem awaiting some funding. Don't forget that usually where careful and imaginative investment is made in making places people friendly the end result is that people go there and where people go they spend money. My own county was a pioneer in converting two redundant railway trackbeds that run through the most scenic part of the county to paths for walkers and cyclists. A study of this initiative showed it was a major factor in attracting tourists to the area. John mentioned the fact there are virtually non of our towns where you are allowed to drive into the principle shopping area. I remember the first cities (Leeds and Sheffield) that took this step nearly fifty years ago and the outcry from motoring organisations and the store owners about how it would kill trade and drive people to alternative towns. The idea was such a failure that everywhere else scrambled to play catch up before they were left behind.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 9, 2009 6:22:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Feb 9, 2009 6:27:32 GMT -5
Correction though, I have thought of a town where anyone visiting its high street will be harrassed by noise and fumes of passing traffic. It is also a town that has some of the loveliest old architecture in England and can also boast some of the ugliest modern buildings I have seen. And where is this bastion uf unenlightened attitudes? The city of Oxford, the place where the preservation of a college cricket pitch has condemned the city to traffic blight for the past fifty years.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 9, 2009 7:10:22 GMT -5
I would echo a point Joe made about tourism. Cycle tourism is booming and will only get bigger. An old railway line between Bright and Beechworth was converted to a 90km bike path a few years ago. It is now a tourist destination and brings a whole bunch of hungry, thirsty sight-seers to every town along the route, every weekend. We have many such "rail trails" all over the State.
Towns all over Victoria compete to be part of the Great Victorian Bike Ride, where hundreds of cyclists ride from one end of the State to another. Events like those bring a huge influx of tourists to small towns that really need the money in these times.
Building good infrastructure for cyclists need not be a drain on the State. Getting people out there can boost rural economies in a way that building yet another freeway bypass never will.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 9, 2009 7:12:20 GMT -5
Wow! Now there's something to aspire to.
|
|
Calluna
Super Duper Member
I think there's someone on the other side...
Posts: 1,005
|
Post by Calluna on Feb 9, 2009 9:54:38 GMT -5
I also agree with Joe that if you build the infrastructure, people will use it. Building nice bike/walking trails is similar to adding clean, well-lit, nice parks with new playground equipment. They attract people either to visit or to move there and stay. I'm planning to start house-hunting in earnest next month, but am already looking at the real estate listings now to get an idea of what is available before talking to a realtor about where I want to look and what I want. One of the houses I've spotted in the listings is an older house, needs a lot of updating work (but is also a lot cheaper than other houses because of it), but is within easy walking distance of the rail trails that I love visiting (there are a lot of people on them on weekends...plenty wide enough to have pedestrians walking, joggers jogging, and cyclists cycling...there's a paved section that roller bladers enjoy too, and then a dirt and gravel section that the joggers like (softer for their knees than pavement) and those with mountain bikes...or at least the right tires...bike on.
When I first started visiting this town about 10 years ago now, there was nothing that direction but one restaurant. Now, at the trail head, there is a hotel, several very nice restaurants, most with outdoor seating in summer, a couple of quick food restaurants (though only one chain), and a big parking area. Even when the shops are closed Sunday mornings, the parking area is pretty crowded with people visiting the rail trail. There are a couple of different parks lining the trail too, and one with a boat launching ramp into the river. One restaurant even accomodates the boaters by having a docking area and entrance from the docks. All that tax money paid for was to dump some dirt and gravel over unused train tracks, and about a one mile section of asphalt instead of gravel next to a park that is a memorial to veterans and "local" people killed in the 9/11 attack. Everything else just grew up around the area using private funds once there was something attracting people there.
Bike trails and cleaning up parks are the sorts of projects that are ideal for stimulus packages. They bring value to neighborhoods, inspire new business growth, inspire healthy living, and can be completed in a very short time. We don't really want to be spending on things like building bridges when that can take 5 years just to plan, and another 5 to actually build. That would mean we'd be committing to 10 years of spending when we just want a year or two to keep people employed while giving the economy a chance to recover. With a bike trail, it doesn't really even need to go anywhere. Unlike a road or bridge, if you get only halfway done with the project and run out of funds or people or the project is abandoned with a new president, you still have a nice bike trail that's half the originally planned length. You aren't committed to seeing it to completion if there are construction delays that slow progress and start raising costs.
Heck, some places with a lot of snow might even consider closing them for biking in winter and turning them into cross country skiing locations. Find me a place like that, and I can tell you a good place to open up a cafe (I'd focus on a few different hot cocoa drinks over the coffee though).
These are exactly the projects we should be looking for. They are short term, require a lot of labor, but not much materials costs, though all the materials can be obtained locally (boost business at the local quarry for gravel), so you keep a lot of people employed without needing to spend a lot on materials we have to buy from other countries, which just dumps more money out of our own economy and into theirs.
We have a really nice state park nearby with some really lovely stone shelters that are ALWAYS rented out (it's hard to get a reservation, they're so popular). Those stone shelters were built by the CCC in Roosevelt's era. That's exactly the concept of how to build back an economy. Building things like that required mostly only materials that were found locally, and employed a lot of people, and resulted in things that are still being enjoyed so many decades later, and are still the basis of the local economy in that area...that park is very popular for its hiking trails, scenic outlooks, picnic areas, rock climbing, cross country skiing in winter, campgrounds, etc. Much better than a highway that makes it easier for people to drive past your town without stopping.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 9, 2009 10:03:13 GMT -5
"Wayne who says that Stuart Florida dosn't need such money? You yourself mentioned the problems of riding along roads where you share with speeding traffic. I should have thought this was a prime example of a problem awaiting some funding. Don't forget that usually where careful and imaginative investment is made in making places people friendly the end result is that people go there and where people go they spend money. My own county was a pioneer in converting two redundant railway trackbeds that run through the most scenic part of the county to paths for walkers and cyclists. A study of this initiative showed it was a major factor in attracting tourists to the area."
This isn't Leeds or Sheffield or Oxford. There's really nothing to see here that you can't see by going on the Florida Trail. As far as commuter biking, yes, I did point out that bike lanes alongside highways are a joke. Funding won't fix that. All you would have to do is make the pedestrian routes into pedestrian/bike routes and you'd be all set for the handful of people who do commute down a given street in a day.
"John mentioned the fact there are virtually non of our towns where you are allowed to drive into the principle shopping area. I remember the first cities (Leeds and Sheffield) that took this step nearly fifty years ago and the outcry from motoring organisations and the store owners about how it would kill trade and drive people to alternative towns. The idea was such a failure that everywhere else scrambled to play catch up before they were left behind. "
The principal shopping areas here are Wal-mart, shopping malls, and supermarkets. You can't drive in there and you can't ride a bike in there anyway. It's totally different.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 9, 2009 11:03:01 GMT -5
There's a marked difference between North America and Europe - space. North American has so much more room compared to Europe. Mind you, we have seriously abused that room and have ended up with urban blight. Rather than refurbish and/or rebuild we effectively abandon and build elsewhere.
|
|