Sunday, March 5, 2017

The bicycle menace

Letter in Encinitas Advocate:
As a 50-plus year resident of Encinitas I'm still waiting for one cost benefit analysis of spending millions for the addition of more bike lanes. Just one blind survey (one that can't be overwhelmed by social media) of people who actually bike to work. Or how about a survey just of the actual amount of bicycle traffic by season and hour.

Anecdotally, what I see during the week is mostly retired types exercising and on the weekends larger groups exercising along our highways/streets. Consequences I/we do know are more frustration. More time (something we can't ever get back) sitting and driving in our cars.

More CO2 emissions because cars are less efficient when idling at longer stop signals/signs because of narrowing of roadways. How about a survey/study of air quality in the road corridors. These could be done easily by putting particulate measuring devices along 101 in town. The city owed it to the residents to do a real cost benefit analysis instead of what appears to be "feel good" governance.

Bart Denson
Encinitas

109 comments:

  1. And when the feel-good council members who truly believe all of us, excepting them, should ditch our cars - look out! They pack council chambers with out of town cyclists to support their vision.

    Perhaps not so much now Barth, who word has it was on the losing side when her bike made contact with an evil auto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was Toto injured?

      Delete
    2. Ask her the next time you see her driving her car.

      Delete
    3. Please add 'out-of-town' cyclists who are sponsored by their parents like little trustafarian faggots. That bike faggot from Leucadia had his parents buy him a condo near the beach so that little trust-funded can 'surf and ride' since he doesn't have to work for a living.

      Delete
  2. Outrageous! Denson is suggesting that our City Council should act rationally based on evidence! Off with his head!

    ReplyDelete
  3. San Diego APCD (Air Pollution Control District) currently runs monitors and measures particulate data. Currently I see no monitors in Encinitas. The closest appears to be in Del Mar.

    Regardless, such data is already available to test the authors hypothesis though a monitor in Encinitas would be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Idling through Encinitas, even during the worst bike-jams, puts far less CO2 into the air than the same number of cars driving through at the speed limit. It's just your precious time that's burning up. Meanwhile, many of those weekend cyclists either stop or come back later with money and visit restaurants and retailers. They appreciate the charm of a town where cycling is a welcome and valued asset, and their presence builds goodwill that trumps your inconvenience.

    How much retail traffic and goodwill is generated when people travel through town on bikes instead of locked in idling cars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh you man like cars stuck in roundabouts will decide to stop and shop?

      Question for you bike lovers: what do you think of the many, unfortunately too-typical cyclists who think the rules of the road don't apply? Because I've seen plenty and they are not giving theimselves a good name.

      Delete
    2. So you're saying the city should spend taxpayers' money on bike lanes so out-of-towners can bike through then come back later in their cars to spend money?

      Delete
    3. Those grape smugglers should be fined for indecent exposure. Neon, spandex, and shaved legs will not make the beer belly anymore aerodynamic. It's like they are training for race they will never enter.

      Do those guys get to use the women's bathroom? If it dresses like a duck, shaves like a duck, and shoes click like a duck. Then it is a duck right?

      For the record, I fully support ones right to be a duck, just get the duck out of the middle of the road. Every weekend does not have be be a Katelyn Jenner fan club memebers ride.

      Delete
    4. 8:32-

      Sounds like West Virginia coming to Encinitas.

      I bet you voted for Trump. Haa!

      Delete
    5. It was a joke 9:12. I did not vote for cheetah hitler but am not a snowflake either. I just really hate annoying cyclist and like to call them names. Like the one who,ran a stop light and almost ran over me on 101. I knew was not going to stop and stepped in front of him. He got off his bike all tough guy. I told him him it is hard to look tough when you sound like a TIjuana hooker walking down the street, heels clicking and all. He wouldn't tell me who waxes his legs, I really want mine to look that smooth and nice.

      Delete
  5. Bart - Such a shallow mind.... just because something is not as good as it can be for the community, doesn't mean it can not be made better.

    Poor old boy can use his mind. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ol' Bart has gotten way ahead of himself, he needs to stop worrying about bike lanes and go plant a flower....

      Delete
    2. I appreciate Bart; his comments make perfect sense. 7:50, you're SAD. (Seriously Addled Denigrator)

      Delete
  6. From what I've observed the biking hordes blow through stop signs and red lights like they're not there.

    Are cyclists supposed to obey the rules of the road as cars do, or not? My vote is not to give them any special allowances until they locate both their manners and a DMV handbook to remind them of what the law, if not common courtesy, demand.

    Don't want to break your momentum by stopping as required? Thought you were in it for the exercise - no?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 10:33-

    You don't get it, because you don't bike ride.

    Cars regularly blow through the stop signs and signals. How many people are killed by vehicle accidents verses a bike killing some one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bicyclists tear thru the town in packs on weekends - I had to remain in the intersection after it turned red to assure myself that the pack wouldn't keep blowing thru the red light; had I turned, I'd have had them stuck in the side of my vehicle. The cops need to enforce road rules for the safety of the bicyclists.

      Delete
    2. Your comment begs the question: "What were you doing in an intersection?".

      I believe that the proper way to enter an intersection is to look in all directions and make sure you can exit the intersection in an efficient and timely manner.

      Are you sure you're not the one following the rules?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. I had a cyclist come up along side me at a red light, smash my side-view mirror, and keep going.

      They make very bad names for themselves while acting holier than thou.

      Delete
    4. I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's - his hair was perfect....

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    5. 11:57 AM Sculpinhead expounds on his stupidity as usual.. One enters an intersection with the intention to turn left. One waits until there is a break in opposing traffic to execute the turn. When bicyclists continue to roll thru a red light, one must wait until they are no longer in your way to complete the turn, in spite of being 'stranded' in the intersection. Maybe rules are different on your hay burner or you are just pain dense.

      Delete
    6. 2:25 PM How long did it take you to conjure up that gem? Break out the air wicks.....

      Delete
    7. Oh please, 6:01 - don't make excuses. If one sees a peloton approaching from the other direction, one does not enter the intersection! Especially if they're making the most dangerous turn in driving - the dreaded left turn.......

      6:03 - it was a poetic non-sequitur - RME........

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    8. 11:57 AM Don't enter the intersection when making a left turn if bicyclists are approaching in the opposition direction!? Did you ever graduate from the horse and buggy era to the motor car? I assume this is your attempt at sarcastic irony - the irony is that you think yourself clever.

      Delete
    9. 12:12 - not bicyclists but a peloton (maybe clean off your glasses so you can actually read the post....oh wait; that doesn't help with comprehension...). I have never seen a bicyclist or 2 or 3 stop an intersection cold, but I have seen many a peloton do that easily. Besides, they're really hard to miss - even from a mile away.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    10. 12:22 PM Some biting wit - does that come off the point on top of your head?

      Delete
    11. Sculpin - were you born annoying or did you learn to perfect it?

      Delete
  8. You see the cyclists blowing through stop signs, but do you see the cars and trucks stopped in the bike lane? The delivery trucks making deliveries? the cars picking people up from the beach on 101? real estate agents planting open house signs? The cars pulled over to take a call or fiddle with GPS or radio?

    Do you see them? Or do you only see certain violations--the ones you want to see?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All violations are violations. What about the businesses where cyclists you claim will be shopping? Do they take delivery, knowing the law is being violated? It's all wrong.

      But when you turn up in droves at city hall, acting nothing short of militant, you'd think the droves would be better behaved...you know, get folks on their side?

      You gonna yell for your right to the road, abide by the rules. I'm not impressed by what I see and where once I might have championed their cause, instead roll my eyes.

      Delete
  9. 6:27 You don't get it because the claim is riding bikes for transportation instead of driving cars reduces GHG emissions. For that to be true, many thousands of people would have to switch, which they haven't and won't. The cost of providing the infrastructure dwarfs the benefit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! There will be MORE greenhouse emissions from cars idling while they attempt to get through multiple chokepoints, one-lane roundabouts. Two lanes of our highway would be taken away from all of us. The bicyclists would also lose their overly-wide 8 ft. bike lane going northbound with the failed roundabout plan. More motor vehicles on fewer lanes equals more greenhouse gases, more back-ups, and gridlock when the freeway is clogged, or during peak traffic periods/seasons.

      Bicyclists are supposed to follow all the rules of the road, including riding single file, except when passing, including within a bicycle lane. The eight foot wide bike lane encourages squadrons of bicyclists to ride several abreast, despite the fact that the Sheriff's Dept. has warned them, publicly, that this is illegal.

      Bart makes excellent points. There should be a more accurate count of bicyclists, including when they are utilizing our public roadways, particularly on major arterials, which are part of our General and Specific Plans, and a vital part of our circulation element.

      Because something sounds groovy, in theory, doesn't mean it would work, in practice. Just as Millennials don't want to live, by and large, in super dense housing, with less parking, they also aren't willing to give up their cars. They may enjoy riding their bikes, recreationally, but will continue to use their cars to commute to work and to travel to shopping destinations. Bags of groceries for one's family would be challenging to carry home on a bicycle.

      Delete
    2. Wrong KLCC freak.

      The backups are at and will be at traffic signals. Roundabout are efficient and will not have any backups.

      Pull your head out and observe reality before commenting. More people will believe you if you are closer to reality.

      Delete
    3. Wrong, 6:38. One lane each way packed with roundabouts will make the current backups worse. In what universe does reducing lanes and choking it with obstructions improve traffic flow? None. What happens when lanes are reduced for repairs? The traffic backs up!

      Delete
    4. There are back-ups, nearly every day at the roundabouts on Leucadia Blvd. Because there are roundabouts is also no guarantee there wouldn't also be traffic lights.

      Delete
  10. Build them and they will ride....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Show the evidence where that's happened in suburbia.

      Delete
    2. Europe and australia. Places were adults are so F)(*&g stupid.

      Delete
    3. Just stating, "Europe and australia" (sic) is not providing evidence.

      The Leucadia 101 Streetscape, as planned, would be more dangerous for bicyclists, as well, because they would all have to funnel through multiple one-lane roundabouts and would lose their wide eight-foot bike lane. Bicyclists should make their priority a separated bike lane; that is, separated from the highway, in the RR right of way. There is already a separated bike/ped lane, as the Coastal Commission has noted, in Cardiff, on the west side of 101, which is well used.

      Also, as pointed out in the Draft EIR, bicyclists and pedestrians would have more public safety issues with the diagonal back-in parking planned, as sight lines would be degraded.

      If the City goes against the recommendations of the Draft EIR to force through a plan, without proper, independent surveys, and traffic studies done during peak seasons, a plan that according to the EIR would create UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, then the City would be liable.

      Delete
    4. Build it, if for no other reason than it will make certain people's heads explode.

      If we need to undo it after that, fine.

      Delete
    5. Undoing it would be cost-prohibitive, but I suspect you know that, 12:39...not to mention the council's sure refusal, but I suspect you anticipate that, too.

      Delete
  11. Bicyclists have the same legal right to ride on the streets (not highways though their are a few exceptions)as do cars and motorcycles.

    They all have to follow the same laws in doing so. And yes police do give tickets to bicyclists just like they do to cars/motorcycles on our roads.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I doubt there are many bicyclists that ride their bikes all the time because they are concerned about reducing emissions vs driving their cars.

    Most do it as a way to promote their health and enjoy the scenery while getting to and from places they want to go to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And acting like they own the road and do not have to obey the law. You forgot that part.

      Delete
    2. Also forgot the self-righteous part, as if by riding a bike they're saving the world while people in cars are destroying it.

      Delete
    3. better than you destroying it. Let me guess, your car isn't even electric.

      Um yes. People in cars including myself are helping to destroy the earth. The worse gas mileage the worse for Mother earth and the US foreign policy.

      Delete
    4. I do it for all the reasons mentioned including its better for mother earth.

      Delete
    5. "Your car isn't even electric." No judgment there.

      Ever consider some of us are driving old cars with high mileage and perhaps we can't afford a car purchase to hybrid or electric?

      Self-righteous, is right.

      Delete
    6. Repeats from above:

      The claim is riding bikes for transportation instead of driving cars reduces GHG emissions. For that to be true, many thousands of people would have to switch, which they haven't and won't. The cost of providing the infrastructure dwarfs the benefit.

      Build them and they will ride....

      Show the evidence where that's happened in suburbia.

      Delete
    7. inland rail trail.

      Delete
    8. The earth can't afford your old polluting cars either. What is worse than your old polluting car is your old non-operating mind.

      You dumb old people need to hang it up, and admit yourself to an old folks home.

      Delete
    9. 9:10 Old people have wisdom that you lack. You aren't even smart enough to recognize that. Try being rational for a change. You'd be surprised how refreshing it is.

      Delete
    10. 7:40,

      Your old road is rapidly aging.

      Get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand.

      Delete
    11. 8:14 And the new one that 7:40 should "get out of" would be what?

      Delete
    12. 9:34, if you spend some time thinking on it, I have faith you'll get it.

      Delete
  13. Another menace - Kristin Gaspar is a featured speaker at a Scripps seminar on dementia. Is she using real life experience?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plus she dumped Norby and put in a pro-growth attorney as some sort of advising consul.

      Delete
    2. Yep - she is following the Trump manifesto - anything for your special interests' profits!

      Delete
  14. 6:06-

    Oh good one.

    You might want to get yourself checked after that one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know the symptoms,eh?

      Delete
  15. Try google for your research, unless you are just trying to make a statement of opposition. There is plenty of literature out there.

    https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources?resource_type=report&authors=&category_name=complete-streets&s=

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cite suburbs in the US where bicycling for transportation has become popular enough to measurably reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      Delete
    2. Show the evidence. Last I looked, Portland is not a suburb.

      Delete
    3. Davis is a university town, and the landscape is flat as a pancake. Hardly a good example. Most students don't own cars. I didn't when I was there. 12:59 PM did you ever ride a bicycle to Sacramento?

      Delete
    4. Davis isn't a suburb either.

      Delete
    5. 7:21 Your point is stupid. You asked for a suburb and you got one.

      Sacramento is ten miles away from Davis. How is that relevant to improving roadways in Encinitas? Why would I want to ride a bike ten miles to go run a errand down the street?

      If you are asking questions, then accept the answer. Being snarky and stupid is no way to go through life.

      Delete
    6. Loaded question and no simple answer .... If you are looking for communities that have completely transitioned from cars to bikes you won't find one.

      But that is not really your question: technically are asking where a suburb has been able to measure reductions from emissions.

      Your answer is "you can measure reductions from a change in behavior from one individual." The emissions from one car is equivalent to 105 trees.

      Davis has one of the more progressive safe routes to school (bike/walk) programs in the state. So even though the city is a college town, not all a college-student riders.

      Delete
    7. The point is that in a suburban bedroom community like Encinitas, enough people can't commute to work on bikes to make a difference in traffic volume and GHG emissions.

      Stores, schools and houses are too spread out for many people to practically bike for transportation. Can't bike far, can't carry much.

      Consequently, megabucks are spent to create infrastructure that yields next to no benefit.

      Those are facts. You can come across with all the irrational arguments you can muster, but you can't dispute those facts.

      Delete
    8. 10:23 By posting stuff like this: "The emissions from one car [are] equivalent to 105 trees," you show you're not thinking or analyzing deeply. What car with what engine emitting what pollutants driven how many miles in what traffic circumstances? What trees and how big?

      Delete
  16. San Diego was voted at one of the happiest places in the US. "Home to well over 3 million people, the San Diego metro area is one of the largest in the country. It is also one of the happiest. Residents’ physical health likely plays a considerable role in overall well-being. San Diego residents are more likely to exercise and eat healthy the average American...."

    If we can't bike and walk every now and then in this perfect climate, why would we expect anyone in Minnesota? If you concerned about costs of infrastructure, you should be more concerned with the amount of your taxes that go to fighting preventable diseases, like obesity. It dwarfs that road diet that you are so concerned about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If large groups of bike riders were primarily black we'd have some new laws pronto. If the straight pipe crowd were black they would be ticketed by the dozens.

      Delete
    2. stupid comment.

      Delete
  17. Barth-

    You clearly don't get it. No common sense. The previous endless road widenings for vehicles in communities has a huge blight causing effects which lowers quality of life and property values. Good road design embracing complete streets does the opposite.

    You seem to have a shallow mind. I'm glad most people pay no attention to your comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have it backwards. Bart has it right. He's asking for evidence.

      Delete
  18. Freudian slip - Bart not Barth doesn't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bart is my new hero and a freedom fighter. No one rides to work and fewer and fewer people are have jobs where they commute, sit in a cube eight hours a day, and then commute home. We need out cars for dropping off dry cleaning, picking up big sacks of dog food from Target, cases of paper towels from Costco, bags of soil from Home Depot and sacks of chicken feed from Carters ALL THIS FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT KIDS. Now what do the kids needs: rides here and there with a large array of 'gear.' DO NOT LET THESE LIBERAL/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST ENVIRONMENTAL FASCISTS DESTROY OUR DRIVE TIMES AND PARKING SPOTS!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a binary choice.

      Ride to lunch; drive to Costco. Ride to the beach; drive to the grocery store. Ride to school; drive to the airport.

      Nearly every cyclist is also a driver.

      If we make it a little easier and safer to ride, we can tilt the balance. Not completely--just enough.

      Sadly, your neurons can't handle the complexity of grey as a concept existing between black and white. But some of us can, and we like complete streets.

      Delete
    2. Great theory but where in suburbia has it worked in practice?

      Delete
    3. Portland, which has a population density of 4000/sq mi, compared to our 3000. Similar.

      Delete
    4. Portland, population 632,000, a medium-sized city, 133 sq mi, 4,754 people per sq mi. Encinitas, population 62,000, a suburban bedroom community, 19 sq mi, 3,263 people per sq mi.

      Portland is a college town. About 30,000 college students there.

      Portland and Encinitas are not similar.

      Delete
    5. Silver Spring.

      https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/md-politics/making-way-for-bicycles-in-a-sprawling-suburb-where-cars-have-always-ruled/2015/06/12/b5f235a6-0a26-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html

      Delete
    6. PB. MB. Downtown Carlsbad. Downtown Oceanside.

      Delete
    7. The point is that in a suburban bedroom community like Encinitas, enough people can't commute to work on bikes to make a difference in traffic volume and GHG emissions.

      Stores, schools and houses are too spread out for many people to practically bike for transportation. Can't bike far, can't carry much.

      Consequently, megabucks are spent to create infrastructure that yields next to no benefit.

      Those are facts. You can come across with all the irrational arguments you can muster, but you can't dispute those facts.

      Delete
    8. All it takes is one less car trip to school or to the restaurant to make a difference.

      I am not supporting roadway changes because I want you to commute to work by bike. If that is your goal, so be it. Unfortunately, a majority of people won't ever commute to or from Encinitas. People that live here don't work here. The people that work here can't afford to live here.

      But what would be nice is seeing more people walking along our corridor. People cruising to the beach if they could. Maybe not every trip. But the collective synergy would make it look a lot nicer than it does now. Its better for business, its better for property values, its better for health and vitality, it supports transit, it reduces air quality impacts, it reduces direct and indirect transportation costs, etc.

      Delete
    9. How many people live close enough to the beach, restaurants, grocery stores, department stores and other retailers that they can walk or bike there carrying stuff to or back?

      Relatively and absolutely few.

      People use cars for transportation because they're fast, convenient and practical. Bikes and walking don't have those advantages.

      Delete
    10. Actually a majority of the city is within walking distance to parks, schools, and/or commercial areas. Draw a 1/4 mile radius (walking) and a 1/2 mile radius (bike) around all of the places you mention and you probably hit about 75 percent of the city's population. Pockets of Leucadia, most of Olivenhain, and southeast Cardiff are outside of these areas.

      And the your last point, people use cars for transportation because there are no other options.

      Delete
  20. 2:03:

    [opinion, opinion, opinion]

    "Those are facts."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That 2:03 cites facts is proven by observable evidence on the Encinitas ground. Very few people commute on bikes or by walking or ever will. Very few people bike or walk for daily transportation or ever will.

      In neither case will more bike/walk infrastructure cause enough people to switch from cars to make any difference in traffic volume or GHG emissions.

      We know this because it hasn't happened anywhere else in US suburbia just as it hasn't happened here as a result of the changes already made.

      Delete
    2. "observable evidence on the Encinitas ground. Very few people commute on bikes or by walking or ever will."

      Glad to know you have observable factual evidence from the future.

      Cut to the chase and tell us exactly when our flying cars will arrive and make this tedious argument with you irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. And we know that horses will outlast this silly notion of horseless carriages, because horses have been the dominant form of transportation for hundreds of years, and change is impossible.

      --8:45, circa 1905.

      Delete
    4. Why did cars replace horses? Because cars are faster, more convenient and more practical.

      The city has been on a bender to amp up walking and biking for several years. Do you see a big increase in walking and biking? No, not here or elsewhere in suburbia.

      There are good, rational reasons for that. The distances are too great to make biking/walking fast, practical and convenient.

      Keep pushing your pie-in-the-sky dreamscape, but the fact is the cost-benefit ratio for providing the infrastructure is radically skewed. Big cost, tiny benefit.

      A few more people biking/walking short distances has no effect on traffic volume and GHG emissions.

      Creating the infrastructure is not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

      Delete
    5. How about creating "any new" infrastructure is not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

      New highways and road widenings are more expensive that sidewalks and stripings for bikes. Furthermore, consider the lasting maintenance costs of favoring the car above all else.

      We can disagree on this one. You vs. reality.

      Delete
    6. The reality is spending public money on infrastructure that very few people use doesn't make economic sense. It's a priorities thing. The greatest good for the greatest number of people. It's a simple fact that big numbers of people do not and will not ride bikes for transportation in suburbia.

      Delete
    7. You are saying that people don't use it. "It" doesn't exist yet. How can that be.

      "They" don't because it isn't safe or convenient to. There are pieces of the city that have sidewalk or bike lanes but its not everywhere. So it is incomplete and inconvenient.

      Analogy: I don't use the I-8 Freeway. Don't use any money on it, ever.

      Delete
    8. Better yet 4:21 - People don't because it isn't safe or convenient to. But "everyone" in the world drives cars.

      How about we put up a barricade on the 101. Let's gauge whether people still drive down the coast and then measure everything else in the world based on that.

      No one drives or bikes and incomplete network.

      Regardless, at some point everyone walks. Put your energy into that.

      Delete
    9. 9:39. It doesn't make economic sense to continue building SOV freeways.

      I makes sense to try new things, learn from them, and then be more efficient moving forward. Maybe the cars will rule the future day after all. Maybe not. Maybe something less than so now, with several families pedaling past idle cars sitting in traffic.

      Delete
  21. The best transportation policies are those that encourage more people to work from home or work in the communities in which they live. Regional commuting is the biggest source of impacts in the region related to health and the environment. I agree with 9:32.

    But if you are going to invest in something, you might as well do something that is making things better for our future.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Electric cars, solar power and Tesla batteries, for example. Reducing the birth rate so the population declines would be good too.

    Getting a few people to ride bikes or walk short distances won't make a hair's breadth of difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmmm. But it does to the person that chooses to ride by bike or walk. They live a healthier lifestyle and get to enjoy their community.

      Go cuddle a freeway.

      Delete
    2. They also go all righteous on the rest of us. Two guys on recumbent bikes flew through a red light where cars were stopped at corner of Encinitas Blvd and the 101 on Saturday. One almost got clipped by a car. Until these "healthier lifestyle" folks figure out they need to coexist with cars and obey the rules, they'll get little support.

      Delete
  23. The fake justification for spending taxpayer money on bike/walk infrastructure is GHG and traffic reduction.

    Not enough suburbanites bike/walk to achieve that effect, nor will they.

    I see plenty of solar panels, plenty of hybrid and electric cars, but very few people biking for transportation in suburbia.

    Anybody who wants to bike/walk for whatever reason, have at it, but you won't have any effect on GHG emissions or traffic congestion unless there are thousands of you doing it every day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Solar and hybrid cars are not good examples as they are also paid by taxpayers. They are subsidized by the government.

      I believe most of everything is, even your mortgage.

      Delete
    2. To great benefit.

      Putting big money into bike/walk infrastructure produces little benefit. The cost/benefit ratio is heavily skewed to cost.

      You do know that pay for and subsidize are very different things, right?

      Delete
  24. Anyone seen Barth on a bike recently?

    ReplyDelete
  25. The headline of this EU entry is very good.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That faggot proponent of more bike lanes is a trust funder who lives in a condo that his parents bought for him on PCH in north Leucadia so he could have a shorted walk to go surfing (no different than masturbating). Don't let this spoiled you know what have ANY impact on our roadways. What a *ucking joke to listen to anything this spoiled SOF is trying to force on us. Blakespear and Kranz are the same way, they have never worked for a living and live off ft trust funds and free homes (thanks mom...now I don't have to work and toil for 20 years to save for a downpayment like regular citizens).

    ReplyDelete