-=> Quoting Leah Rozhon to Ken Peck <=-
 KP> There needs to be more battling on commuter trains and busses.  It is
 KP> absolutely ridiculous to try to combat air pollution and make it
 KP> impossible for folks to use bicycles to get to and from mass transit
 KP> terminals. 
 LR> It's money, Ken.  That's the bottom line.  I'm always hearing about
 LR> stretched budgets for the different transportation agencies aroound
 LR> here?  There would have to be expensive modifications to trains and
 LR> buses for this to happen.  And I think the ultimate answer would be
 LR> more taxes.  Nobody around here is going to go for that!  Now if there
 LR> was a way to get rid of gov't waste.......
It may be money, but the economics are actually on the side of bicycling! 
Somewhere around here I have an ad that was published somewhere where a bond
issue was being proposed for various transportation projects.  The ad took
those projects and showed that if the money was used to promote bicycling,
bicycles could be provided to every man, woman and child in the region along
with bicycle safety training, bicycle parking facilities, an extensive trail
system and more and there would still be millions left over!
Yes, you have lobby groups agitating for roads, bridges, subways, light rail,
et cetera because there are big dollars for the folks who build and maintain
such.  It's not that the money is not available; it is just being used in
unproductive ways.  The "expensive modifications" required to carry bikes on
trains and buses are trivial compared to the constant expansion of streets,
highways, parking facilities, etc to accomodate automobiles.
 
 LR> I'm familiar with ISTEA.  And yes, the Chicago area gets significant
 LR> funds.  Right now the emphasis here is on a trail system.  It's nice,
 LR> and it's fun to ride, but it's mostly recreational.  Forget using it
 LR> dependably for 6 or so months of the year for biking.  Skiers use it
 LR> in the winter and would not like it cleaned and maintained for
 LR> bicycles. It's *very* expensive to acquire the land and make a trail. 
 LR> I was reading in an area biking publication recently where our ISTEA
 LR> funds were going, and it was mostly, if not all, for a continuance of
 LR> this system.  Bike commuters need what motorists have--a safe surface
 LR> to ride on year around.  I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime.
Part of the problem is that bicyclists keep buying the argument that they do
not belong on the streets and tell the planners they want trails.  The
problem being, of course, that we already have in our public streets an
infrastructure that goes where people (including bicyclists) want to go. 
When bicyclists say they want a separate infrastructure, they get trails
which don't go anywhere practical and aren't much good for bicycles.
 LR> Ok, what biking amenities do you have in your city that have come as a
 LR> result of NOTABLE, club activity, or NTCOG?  We have laws that allow
Dallas has the Dallas City Bike Plan.  This consists of a grid of public
streets which are appropriate for and typically used by utility bicyclists to
get around the city.  The city has prepared a map of these routes published
conveniently on a sweat resistant paper that bicyclists can carry in a jersey
pocket in Texas heat.  The routes are also marked by distinctive signs. 
Hazards, such as parallel drainage grates, etc. have been removed from these
routes.  Ordinances require that when these streets are rebuilt, they will be
rebuilt according to standards which allow for wide right lanes which can be
safely shared by cars and bicycles.  Most of the cities in the Dallas/Fort
Worth metroplex have adopted these ordinances.  We are also involved in the
training of police and driving instructors through NTCOG on bicycle safety,
with several certified training credit seminars being offered each year. 
Other projects underway are attempts to gather reliable and useful statistics
on bicycle accidents.
 LR> road. We've tried, and it's always a money thing.  ISTEA doesn't
 LR> provide enough, and what is provided doesn't meet the needs of
 LR> *serious* transportation.  So I'll be very interested to see what is
 LR> happening at the various organazations during this bicycle show.  Take
First of all, part of the ISTEA money is earmarked for bicycle/pedestrian
transportation needs.  If Chicago is blowing this on recreational facilities,
then the money is being misappropriated.  One of the things our NTCOG is
doing is setting regional standards for the use of this money for bicycle
transportation needs.  Yes, we are still getting some of these ridiculous
things like a 1 mile recreational bike trail; but NTCOG is catching more and
more of these things and recommending to DoT that they NOT be approved.
    ===  ==== =   _@
    Ken Peck +  _ \<._
    =========  (_)/ (_)   Kenneth_Peck@clr.com
... There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of tailwinds.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------