I actually find the article to be very poorly written and confusing. Even the title makes no sense "Boom in bicycling could be boon to budgeting for city transit". Perhaps "city transit" is supposed to mean non-MV specific transportation spending? And most of the support for this thesis describes low-cost changes like adding stop signs that have very little to zero impact on budgets (a pair of yield signs for path vehicle oiperators vs. a pair of stop signs for street vehicle operators).
He completely misses one of the primary goals of the project, which is to widen the path. 8 ft is substandard width for any multiuse path and especially for one that sees the traffic that this section does. The bridge is also currently an obstacle for some of the snow removal equipment that Parks East (or contractors) use and increases time/cost to clear the snow. Of course, the path is both a transportation and recreational facility and the money invested supports both functions (as opposed to 'city transit'). He makes it sound like the project is almost a boondoggle aimed at addressing non-existent drainage issues and not-so-bad pavement conditions at the expense of road work for cars. He foments pitting people in cars against people on bikes with statements like "Beware motorists:" and "'Free-loading' bicyclists" and doesn't include mention of any attempt to get information from the project engineer. Pretty poor journalism in my opinion. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Harald Kliems <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:21 AM Matthew Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The problem is that the >> people making the decisions do not believe it is the role of the state to >> provide funding for bicycling, while at the same time, clinging to >> 1970's-era thinking about the value of highways. >> > Case in point: Even this otherwise reasonable article can't resist making > quips about how cyclists don't pay their way (not to speak of the stupid > "and cyclists run reds all the time!!" that follows): > > "None of the Cap City and intersection work is funded with fees collected > on bicyclists. While the city requires a $10-per-bike registration fee, the > ordinance isn’t enforced and the money is used to cover staff for its > program to encourage biking. > “Free-loading” bicyclists are a long-standing irritant for some motorists, > as is bicyclists’ tendency to ignore street signs, stop lights and other > rules of the road. " > > > http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/columnists/chris-rickert/chris-rickert-boom-in-bicycling-could-be-boon-to-budgeting/article_51f09259-3950-550a-81e4-d0b8980e038a.html > > Har"no new highways until nobody speeds any more"ald > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
