DC Bike Summit report (lobbying effort)

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

Just got back from the DC Bike Summit and have quickly
thrown up a page about it on our website-

http://www.chainreaction.com/dcbikesummit04.htm

I felt this was an enormously-important (and successful)
event. When cyclists present their voice on the hill, things
*do* happen. It's unfortunate that it's so difficult for the
average person (or shop owner) to get involved, but it's not
impossible... otherwise I couldn't have done it!

If you have the time, please check out that page; it lays
out the issues that were addressed. And get involved if you
can. If the issues strike you as relevant, send an email to
your Congressperson. They *do* pay attention, and,
surprisingly, breaking through the clutter isn't that tough
(each Congressperson has a fairly decent staff, with
different people dedicated to different types of issues; in
general, the "transportation" staffer is the one you'll be
dealing with).

If you need info on who your Congressperson is and how to
contact them, go to either www.house.gov or www.senate.gov.

And finally, I know emails seem tacky, but right now that's
the best way to get ahold of them. Mail simply isn't working
anymore, due to the anthrax and other security scares. The
process of irradiating the mail destroys about half of what
comes through (it causes various inks to cook and/or melt,
and even destroys some types of paper), and it takes forever
to find its way to them, if it does at all. Representatitve
Tom Lantos' office hadn't seen a mail delivery in one week!

Thanks-

--Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:18:25 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just got back from the DC Bike Summit and have quickly
>thrown up a page about it on our website-
>
>http://www.chainreaction.com/dcbikesummit04.htm
>
>I felt this was an enormously-important (and successful)
>event. When cyclists present their voice on the hill,
>things *do* happen. It's unfortunate that it's so difficult
>for the average person (or shop owner) to get involved, but
>it's not impossible... otherwise I couldn't have done it!
>
>If you have the time, please check out that page; it lays
>out the issues that were addressed. And get involved if you
>can. If the issues strike you as relevant, send an email to
>your Congressperson. They *do* pay attention, and,
>surprisingly, breaking through the clutter isn't that tough
>(each Congressperson has a fairly decent staff, with
>different people dedicated to different types of issues; in
>general, the "transportation" staffer is the one you'll be
>dealing with).
>

I'm never sure whether to despair or hope for democracy.

A good buddy of mine used to work on the Hill doing just
this. Talking to him put me off ever trying to contact a
United States representative; he would talk about reams of
constituent mail and emails, and lots from cranks, as well.
The Member had, through his chief of staff, issued them a
list of 'approved language' that gave a reasonable
impression that the member had read or even responded to the
communication.

At around the same time, I was doing thesis research at
the Library of Congress and the National Archives. Passing
by the House office buildings on my way to the Library, I
was always touched to see families, touring Washington for
the first time, and calling on their U.S. Representatives,
as a courtesy.

-Luigi

 

[Top Sirloin]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> I'm never sure whether to despair or hope for democracy.

I appreciate Mike's effort and his report, but in all
reality should the federal government be involved in
micromanaging cycling and pedestrian access at a local level
nationwide?

The only roads the feds should be building are interstates,
and only in the cause of national defense. The focus should
be on starving the fed gov of funds, freeing up money for
state/county/city cycling initiatives where the process is a
million times more efficient and intimate.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> I appreciate Mike's effort and his report, but in all
> reality should the federal government be involved in
> micromanaging cycling and pedestrian access at a local
> level nationwide?
>
> The only roads the feds should be building are
> interstates, and only in the cause of national defense.
> The focus should be on starving the fed gov of funds,
> freeing up money for state/county/city cycling initiatives
> where the process is a million times more efficient and
> intimate.

"The feds" generally aren't building roads at the state or
local level. Nor are we suggesting otherwise. But this isn't
a "states rights" issue! The federal government has a very
real and very important responsibility to ensure consistent
standards for roads, in every state, for obvious safety
reasons. The federal government also has an obligation
(largely overlooked) to consider transportation issues as
something that goes beyond what a local municipality is
willing to do. For example, at the local level, a
jurisdiction may decide to hell with air quality issues, you
shouldn't trust air you can't cut with a knife. *I* would
argue (while you may not) that citizens deserve some degree
of minimal standards for the environment.

Probably one of the most important issues we're pushing,
regarding the "complete streets" program, is a uniform set
of standards for how cyclists & pedestrians are accommodated
at intersections, as well as on roadways in general. This
isn't the government actually building anything, but rather
making sure that our needs are accounted for by default,
rather than us having to have esp and know when something's
coming up and make our voices known each and every time (not
to mention that uniform standards improve safety, since
everyone knows what to expect at, say, an intersection).

As for freeing up funds because the state/county/city is
a "million times more efficient and intimate"- I don't
think that's true. I'm sure you can find examples of
federal boondoggles that are shocking beyond belief, but
there are definite advantages to doing things on a
national scale in terms of providing better analysis of
what works and what doesn't, due to both a larger and
more consistent sample size.

But trust me on this one- "The Feds" would much rather
pretend to give the states money and let them do what they
wish. Two things go wrong. First of all, the big lie. Like
the California Lottery, which was supposed to save our
schools with increased funding (but the reality is that the
state offset the new funds by reducing others)... well no,
bad example, this would be even worse. "The Feds" wouldn't
capture any less money, they just wouldn't send it to the
states. *Or* they'd claim they weren't capturing (ok,
collecting taxes) the funds in the first place, so it
becomes the state or local municipalities job to do so.

I could probably provide better arguments if I hadn't just
gotten back from a Century...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 06:15:04 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote: <snip>
>As for freeing up funds because the state/county/city is
>a "million times more efficient and intimate"- I don't
>think that's true. I'm sure you can find examples of
>federal boondoggles that are shocking beyond belief, but
>there are definite advantages to doing things on a
>national scale in terms of providing better analysis of
>what works and what doesn't, due to both a larger and
>more consistent sample size.
>

Just the same, Mr. J, I'd rather deal with city hall than
Capitol Hill. If I have a problem with how things go in my
town, I can walk into the mayor's office, or the city
manager's, and have it out.

I do however agree that setting federal standards on
accomodation is an admirable goal. How about calibrating
all those accursed induction-loop traffic lights to trigger
for bicycles? grrr! But there, again, that's an easy thing
to go to the municipal authorities to do, traffic light by
traffic light.

(on that score, I've been fortunate. Someone--I don't know
who--has made sure that nearly every induction loop light I
ride through is triggered by my bicycle. eventually. yay
city hall/VDOT/someone!)

I haven't ridden nearly so far today. Just to church and
back. and I'm still annoyed that I couldn't motorpace behind
that minivan for as long as I wanted to.

-Luigi half the age and a quarter the strength of Mr. J

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Just the same, Mr. J, I'd rather deal with city hall than
> Capitol Hill. If I have a problem with how things go in my
> town, I can walk into the mayor's office, or the city
> manager's, and have it out.
>
> I do however agree that setting federal standards on
> accomodation is an admirable goal. How about calibrating
> all those accursed induction-loop traffic lights to
> trigger for bicycles? grrr! But there, again, that's an
> easy thing to go to the municipal authorities to do,
> traffic light by traffic light.

Already done! Believe it or not, that exact situation was
brought up as one of the success stories. There is now a
standard way to mark the location of the coil for bicycles,
so you know exactly where to position yourself. It's already
being done in Palo Alto, CA.

The problem with doing it by going to the municipal
authorities, traffic light by traffic light, is that they
have little, if any, incentive to fix things (aside from you
bugging them). Worse yet, even if they do want to make your
life better, they're worried that something they do is going
to earn them a lawsuit. When they do something to the
federal standard, that's no longer an issue, and this has an
amazing effect on getting them to cooperate... with you!

Also, one of the points to "complete streets" is that they
have to show cause for *not* including bicycles and
pedestrians.

> (on that score, I've been fortunate. Someone--I don't know
> who--has made sure that nearly every induction loop light
> I ride through is triggered by my bicycle. eventually. yay
> city hall/VDOT/someone!)

But have they painted the appropriate symbol on the ground,
telling you that a bicycle will trigger it, and showing you
where you need to be?

> I haven't ridden nearly so far today. Just to church and
> back. and I'm still annoyed that I couldn't motorpace
> behind that minivan for as long as I wanted to.
>
> -Luigi half the age and a quarter the strength of Mr. J

Hey, at least you didn't skip church for a century today.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 08:15:05 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip excellent news on Federal standards for induction-
loop traffic
signals>

>But have they painted the appropriate symbol on the ground,
>telling you that a bicycle will trigger it, and showing you
>where you need to be?

Uh, no. I never thought of that. I have the most luck
positioning myself dead center in the lane if I'm at the
head of the queue at the stoplight. If I'm alone, being in
the dead center of the coil usually does the trick.

The funny thing is that I do this in the car, too. Dad is
occasionally too impatient to wait , and occasionally rolls
too far over to trigger the sensor when he's driving. He
then gets even more mad when the light doesn't change.

I figure if I know how to trigger the lights on a bicycle,
applying the same care whilst controlling a ton and change
of steel would easily get the lights to change for me. More
cyclist traffic zen.

>
>> I haven't ridden nearly so far today. Just to church and
>> back. and I'm still annoyed that I couldn't motorpace
>> behind that minivan for as long as I wanted to.
>>
>> -Luigi half the age and a quarter the strength of Mr. J
>
>Hey, at least you didn't skip church for a century today.

I'm in no shape for a century at this point in the
season anyway.

I am my own hypergravity training routine.

-Luigi

>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:18:25 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just got back from the DC Bike Summit and have quickly
>thrown up a page about it on our website-
>http://www.chainreaction.com/dcbikesummit04.htm
<snip>

So, let me get this straight: You're trying to
- make a difference
- legally
- within the system
- properly
- reasonably
- _and_ successfully

Hrmph. That's pretty rare. I see that it works...who'd have
ever thought?

Meanwhile, while you go off gallavanting on trips of
political usefulness, the rest of us here will armchair-
quarterback our way to nowhere quite productively.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Top Sirloin]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> The problem with doing it by going to the municipal
> authorities, traffic light by traffic light, is that they
> have little, if any, incentive to fix things (aside from
> you bugging them).

You've evidently never seen me show up at a city council
meeting.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Top Sirloin]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> "The feds" generally aren't building roads at the state or
> local level. Nor are we suggesting otherwise. But this
> isn't a "states rights" issue! The federal government has
> a very real and very important responsibility to ensure
> consistent standards for roads, in every state, for
> obvious safety reasons.

I don't that that it's necessary for the feds to set
consistent road standards nationwide, but that's just my
opinion. The example I would give would be rural communities
crosslaced with dozens of gravel and rough roads that while
they may stink for cycling for even driving in your car, are
perfect for their use of moving farm equipment and loads
around. Forcing these communities to pay to upgrade these
roads to perfect sections of two-lane blacktop with bicycles
lanes and pretty interchanges would be a huge unnecessary
tax burden.

> The federal government also has an obligation (largely
> overlooked) to consider transportation issues as something
> that goes beyond what a local municipality is willing to
> do. For example, at the local level, a jurisdiction may
> decide to hell with air quality issues, you shouldn't
> trust air you can't cut with a knife. *I* would argue
> (while you may not) that citizens deserve some degree of
> minimal standards for the environment.

No, I completely agree that industry needs to be regulated
in order to keep their impact on the environment as low as
feasible, and more importantly that enforcement be swift and
strict, and that it's appropriate for all of that to be
determined at the federal level.

> Probably one of the most important issues we're pushing,
> regarding the "complete streets" program, is a uniform set
> of standards for how cyclists & pedestrians are
> accommodated at intersections, as well as on roadways in
> general. This isn't the government actually building
> anything, but rather making sure that our needs are
> accounted for by default, rather than us having to have
> esp and know when something's coming up and make our
> voices known each and every time (not to mention that
> uniform standards improve safety, since everyone knows
> what to expect at, say, an intersection).

This sounds like a good idea IMHO, but are they just going
to be recommendations from the feds, or is the intent to
have them incorporated into a bill? Are these going to be
nationwide or just in urban areas.

I think the tipping point will be when cycling and
pedestrian recreation become popular enough (and you can see
the rumblings of this coming with the current "war on fat"
in the country - as cyclists we should be grabbing American
obseity by the throat and pointing out how nmcompatible our
current roadways are with unmotorized travel) that we hit
critical mass in term of the percentage of elected officials
at all levels of government who _automatically_ take into
account the things we want because they themselves see the
importance of them.

> As for freeing up funds because the state/county/city is
> a "million times more efficient and intimate"- I don't
> think that's true. I'm sure you can find examples of
> federal boondoggles that are shocking beyond belief, but
> there are definite advantages to doing things on a
> national scale in terms of providing better analysis of
> what works and what doesn't, due to both a larger and
> more consistent sample size.

But local taxes _are_ more efficient. There's less overhead
on every dollar of tax collected, which means for bang for
the taxpayer buck.

> But trust me on this one- "The Feds" would much rather
> pretend to give the states money and let them do what
> they wish.

As above, the secret is to not send the money to Washington
in the first place.

> Two things go wrong. First of all, the big lie. Like the
> California Lottery, which was supposed to save our schools
> with increased funding (but the reality is that the state
> offset the new funds by reducing others)... well no, bad
> example, this would be even worse. "The Feds" wouldn't
> capture any less money, they just wouldn't send it to the
> states. *Or* they'd claim they weren't capturing (ok,
> collecting taxes) the funds in the first place, so it
> becomes the state or local municipalities job to do so.

Going to the Federal Government isn't going to solve
Californias problem of having elected dozens of
socialists!

You'll find this interesting (and I only linked from a
conservative news forum so you wouldn't have to register
to read it):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093079/posts

> I could probably provide better arguments if I hadn't just
> gotten back from a Century...

This isn't an argument, just a discussion.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Top Sirloin]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> "The feds" generally aren't building roads at the state or
> local level. Nor are we suggesting otherwise. But this
> isn't a "states rights" issue! The federal government has
> a very real and very important responsibility to ensure
> consistent standards for roads, in every state, for
> obvious safety reasons.

I don't that that it's necessary for the feds to set
consistent road standards nationwide, but that's just my
opinion. The example I would give would be rural communities
crosslaced with dozens of gravel and rough roads that while
they may stink for cycling for even driving in your car, are
perfect for their use of moving farm equipment and loads
around. Forcing these communities to pay to upgrade these
roads to perfect sections of two-lane blacktop with bicycles
lanes and pretty interchanges would be a huge unnecessary
tax burden.

> The federal government also has an obligation (largely
> overlooked) to consider transportation issues as something
> that goes beyond what a local municipality is willing to
> do. For example, at the local level, a jurisdiction may
> decide to hell with air quality issues, you shouldn't
> trust air you can't cut with a knife. *I* would argue
> (while you may not) that citizens deserve some degree of
> minimal standards for the environment.

No, I completely agree that industry needs to be regulated
in order to keep their impact on the environment as low as
feasible, and more importantly that enforcement be swift and
strict, and that it's appropriate for all of that to be
determined at the federal level.

> Probably one of the most important issues we're pushing,
> regarding the "complete streets" program, is a uniform set
> of standards for how cyclists & pedestrians are
> accommodated at intersections, as well as on roadways in
> general. This isn't the government actually building
> anything, but rather making sure that our needs are
> accounted for by default, rather than us having to have
> esp and know when something's coming up and make our
> voices known each and every time (not to mention that
> uniform standards improve safety, since everyone knows
> what to expect at, say, an intersection).

This sounds like a good idea IMHO, but are they just going
to be recommendations from the feds, or is the intent to
have them incorporated into a bill? Are these going to be
nationwide or just in urban areas.

I think the tipping point will be when cycling and
pedestrian recreation become popular enough (and you can see
the rumblings of this coming with the current "war on fat"
in the country - as cyclists we should be grabbing American
obseity by the throat and pointing out how nmcompatible our
current roadways are with unmotorized travel) that we hit
critical mass in term of the percentage of elected officials
at all levels of government who _automatically_ take into
account the things we want because they themselves see the
importance of them.

> As for freeing up funds because the state/county/city is
> a "million times more efficient and intimate"- I don't
> think that's true. I'm sure you can find examples of
> federal boondoggles that are shocking beyond belief, but
> there are definite advantages to doing things on a
> national scale in terms of providing better analysis of
> what works and what doesn't, due to both a larger and
> more consistent sample size.

But local taxes _are_ more efficient. There's less overhead
on every dollar of tax collected, which means for bang for
the taxpayer buck.

> But trust me on this one- "The Feds" would much rather
> pretend to give the states money and let them do what
> they wish.

As above, the secret is to not send the money to Washington
in the first place.

> Two things go wrong. First of all, the big lie. Like the
> California Lottery, which was supposed to save our schools
> with increased funding (but the reality is that the state
> offset the new funds by reducing others)... well no, bad
> example, this would be even worse. "The Feds" wouldn't
> capture any less money, they just wouldn't send it to the
> states. *Or* they'd claim they weren't capturing (ok,
> collecting taxes) the funds in the first place, so it
> becomes the state or local municipalities job to do so.

Going to the Federal Government isn't going to solve
Californias problem of having elected dozens of
socialists!

You'll find this interesting (and I only linked from a
conservative news forum so you wouldn't have to register
to read it):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1093079/posts

> I could probably provide better arguments if I hadn't just
> gotten back from a Century...

This isn't an argument, just a discussion.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:08:25 -0500, Top Sirloin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think the tipping point will be when cycling and
>pedestrian recreation become popular enough (and you can
>see the rumblings of this coming with the current "war on
>fat" in the country -

Whew! I'm thoroughly exhausted. Uncontrolled, undignified
laughter is so tiring....!

What it boils down to for the average American is this:
faced with a choice, would you rather suffer moderate pain
for your own good, or have another Big Mac?

They go for the Big Mac, every time. I would, too. Any rat
in a Skinner box would.

The only thing that will get non-motorized transport off the
ground in any serious fashion in America is a 1970s-scale
major energy crisis. As in long lines to get gasoline. As in
total failure of supply.

You will note that the "bike boom" and Bikecentennial and
nearly all of the major advances of the latter half of the
twentieth century for cyclists in America can be traced to
that brutal contraction of the energy supply. As soon as the
oil started flowing again, the bike boom died out, and
bicycles were safely on the back roads and back burner.

-Luigi

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:08:25 -0500, Top Sirloin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think the tipping point will be when cycling and
>pedestrian recreation become popular enough (and you can
>see the rumblings of this coming with the current "war on
>fat" in the country -

Whew! I'm thoroughly exhausted. Uncontrolled, undignified
laughter is so tiring....!

What it boils down to for the average American is this:
faced with a choice, would you rather suffer moderate pain
for your own good, or have another Big Mac?

They go for the Big Mac, every time. I would, too. Any rat
in a Skinner box would.

The only thing that will get non-motorized transport off the
ground in any serious fashion in America is a 1970s-scale
major energy crisis. As in long lines to get gasoline. As in
total failure of supply.

You will note that the "bike boom" and Bikecentennial and
nearly all of the major advances of the latter half of the
twentieth century for cyclists in America can be traced to
that brutal contraction of the energy supply. As soon as the
oil started flowing again, the bike boom died out, and
bicycles were safely on the back roads and back burner.

-Luigi

 

[Max]

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote

> What it boils down to for the average American is
> this: faced
with a
> choice, would you rather suffer moderate pain for your
> own good,
or
> have another Big Mac?
>
> They go for the Big Mac, every time. I would, too. Any rat
> in a Skinner box would.

I hear ya, but as my friend who introduced me to long
distance cycling and commuting pointed out -- if you ride,
you can eat _more_ Big Max.

I think that might be cycling's biggest challenge, to move
cycling from being percieved as a challange to being seen as
a gateway to other, better things.

I tried this winter, my successes tempered by my snotsicle-
encrusted arrivals at work. "No, Really! It's fun!"

.max i can dream.

 

[Max]

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote

> What it boils down to for the average American is
> this: faced
with a
> choice, would you rather suffer moderate pain for your
> own good,
or
> have another Big Mac?
>
> They go for the Big Mac, every time. I would, too. Any rat
> in a Skinner box would.

I hear ya, but as my friend who introduced me to long
distance cycling and commuting pointed out -- if you ride,
you can eat _more_ Big Max.

I think that might be cycling's biggest challenge, to move
cycling from being percieved as a challange to being seen as
a gateway to other, better things.

I tried this winter, my successes tempered by my snotsicle-
encrusted arrivals at work. "No, Really! It's fun!"

.max i can dream.

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:19:26 -0600, "max" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> What it boils down to for the average American is
>> this: faced
>with a
>> choice, would you rather suffer moderate pain for your
>> own good,
>or
>> have another Big Mac?
>>
>> They go for the Big Mac, every time. I would, too. Any
>> rat in a Skinner box would.
>
>I hear ya, but as my friend who introduced me to long
>distance cycling and commuting pointed out -- if you ride,
>you can eat _more_ Big Max.
>
>I think that might be cycling's biggest challenge, to move
>cycling from being percieved as a challange to being seen
>as a gateway to other, better things.

Nobody wants gateways. Everybody wants Big Macs. American
society in the aggregate is not amenable to long-term
planning, or visualization--which might account for the
unbelievably low rate of savings in the American economy,
especially in the last twenty years or so.

The Good has never interested many people; fear of The Bad
is far more compelling.

-Luigi

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:19:26 -0600, "max" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> What it boils down to for the average American is
>> this: faced
>with a
>> choice, would you rather suffer moderate pain for your
>> own good,
>or
>> have another Big Mac?
>>
>> They go for the Big Mac, every time. I would, too. Any
>> rat in a Skinner box would.
>
>I hear ya, but as my friend who introduced me to long
>distance cycling and commuting pointed out -- if you ride,
>you can eat _more_ Big Max.
>
>I think that might be cycling's biggest challenge, to move
>cycling from being percieved as a challange to being seen
>as a gateway to other, better things.

Nobody wants gateways. Everybody wants Big Macs. American
society in the aggregate is not amenable to long-term
planning, or visualization--which might account for the
unbelievably low rate of savings in the American economy,
especially in the last twenty years or so.

The Good has never interested many people; fear of The Bad
is far more compelling.

-Luigi

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:08:25 -0500, Top Sirloin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Forcing these communities to pay to upgrade these roads
>to perfect sections of two-lane blacktop with bicycles
>lanes and pretty interchanges would be a huge unnecessary
>tax burden.

Fed standards rarely apply to state only and county roads.
They apply to roads using Fed dollars. Maryland grants
waivers faster than the drop of a hat on almost any state
roads. The counties ask what waivers you'd like before you
start building...

AASHTO is a recommendation in most cases.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:08:25 -0500, Top Sirloin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This sounds like a good idea IMHO, but are they just going
>to be recommendations from the feds, or is the intent to
>have them incorporated into a bill? Are these going to be
>nationwide or just in urban areas.

If they are paid in part or in whole by Fed dollars, they
have to use as the default the Fed standards. Anyone that
can justify by hardship or special design a different spec
will usually be allowed to build otherwise. The key is that
the default includes considerations for bike and pedestrian
travel and they have to justify building otherwise.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:58:57 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You will note that the "bike boom" and Bikecentennial and
>nearly all of the major advances of the latter half of the
>twentieth century for cyclists in America can be traced to
>that brutal contraction of the energy supply

Change that to road bikes and it may largely be true. MTBs
have little to do with the oil issues.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...