DC Bike Summit report (lobbying effort)

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:41:10 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

I'll never try to convince womeone that really believes this
otherwise, but I don't agree. I'm actually surprised on a
regular basis how much good people will do without gain or
compulsion, given the opportunity.

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

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:41:45 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Sure. They're supposed to be ridden off-road! *grin*

As an historian by training, I am fascinated by the huge
boom not only in bicycles themselves but publishing about
bicycles in the USA during the 1970s and early 1980s.
Several very good books still on the shelf at my local
library date from this era, before Le Mond was winning the
Tour. Several organizations either grew out of the era
directly (USPRO and Bikecentennial/Adventure Cycling) or
found themselves greatly expanded (and, in teh case of the
LAW/LAB, ultimately changed to the detriment of their mass-
base.) Forrester's excellent _Effective Cycling_ was
published during this time. Over in my town hall, the
planning office's handbooks on designing for bicycle
transportation were published at around this time.

What I'm getting at here is that there was not only a boom,
but that all the elements of that boom were focused on
bicycles as coequal with other traffic *on the road*. This
became attractive and even necessary in the eyes of many
because of fears of a permanent state of petroleum siege.

The off-roading phenomenon has undoubtedly turned out new
legions of riders and attracted many young people to the
bicycle in general. But both in the engineering and the
marketing, MTBs were and are cast as off-road vehicles. A
million MTBs do nothing for my rights on the road if they're
only ridden on singletrack!

Go to your local higher-education campus. You'll see a lot
of bicycles, many MTBs or MTB-like bicycles. All of them
will be ridden on the sidewalk, because my generation has
never seen a groundswell of public enthusiasm for bicycles
in the street. This is not saying you won't find very active
cyclists there--but they're getting their cycling kicks by
riding off cliffs, not by touring rural highways.

I should say here that I have nothing against mountain
bikers at all, and I myself think mountain biking is a whole
load of fun. But the boom in MTBs has not corresponded with
a boom in bicycles seen on the road. The Oil-Crisis Bike
Boom generated such a corresponding increase, and only such
a corresponding increase (triggered, perhaps, by a
correspondingly unpleasant stimulus) will make the masses
move in the direction of bicycle transport.

-Luigi

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:43:40 -0500, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:41:10 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The Good has never interested many people; fear of The Bad
>>is far more compelling.
>
>I'll never try to convince womeone that really believes
>this otherwise, but I don't agree. I'm actually surprised
>on a regular basis how much good people will do without
>gain or compulsion, given the opportunity.

Individual acts of kindness, mercy, and charity are
one thing.

Public policy is quite another; as is the sum of all
individual choices in a society. If people were regularly
interested in The Good, why aren't they more literate, more
tolerant, more involved, fitter, happier, and generally less
wretched than they are presently?

-Luigi

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:58:59 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If people were regularly interested in The Good, why
> aren't they more literate, more tolerant, more involved,
> fitter, happier, and generally less wretched than they are
> presently?

Compared to whose standards? Literate? Do they have to have
read Merton, Chilton, Aquinas or somesuch? They may get all
they want from the sports pages and, if so, they are
literate enough for their purposes. That doesn't make them
not 'Good'.

Tolerant? People are probably more tolerant today in the
U.S. than in any society previous to the current
U.S./European societies. Whether they are more or less
tolerant than specific European societies is a case by case
and ox-gored by ox-gored case. Perfect? Perfect tolerance is
probably achieved only by the perfectly oblivious.

Involved? Who the standards of what is acceptable to be
involved? Not everyone is going to be working at soup
kitchens. Some people will do no more than write a
check. Whatever.

Fitter is an issue, but that is a personal choice. I'm not
sure what a bunch a fitter people have on 'The Good'. I've
seen a lot of people involved in Zen/Ch'an or TM and pretty
unfit. They thought they were in 'The Good'.

And wretched? Many people would be a lot more wretched
reading Aquinas instead of the sports page and eating doufu
instead of pork loin. Reminds me too much of student
activists that tried to 'organize' the Olds plant in Lansing
and got the **** kicked out of them by a bunch of blue
collar union laborers who decided they didn't need advice
from a kid that hadn't paid his first real bill.

This BTW isn't apocryphal. I was attending Michigan State
and was one of the guys screwing the rear speaker into the
top of the trunk when the revolution lead by the Students
for a Democratic Society failed. Didn't go over well at
Fisher or the wheel place (forget the name) either.

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

 

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:36:17 -0500,
<[email protected]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:

>As an historian by training, I am fascinated by the huge
>boom not only in bicycles themselves but publishing about
>bicycles in the USA during the 1970s and early 1980s.

I don't think tying the early seventies bike boom solely to
oil is accurate. A lot of young North Americans were
travelling Europe and coming home with bikes. Bicycles
became part of that counter culture.
--
zk

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Public policy is quite another; as is the sum of all
> individual choices in a society. If people were regularly
> interested in The Good, why aren't they more literate,
> more tolerant, more involved, fitter, happier, and
> generally less wretched than they are presently?

Because instead of trying to influence their elected
officials, or get the right ones elected in the first place,
they're spending their time in newsgroups?

Consider me guilty as charged.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:36:17 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>(USPRO and Bikecentennial/Adventure Cycling)

I don't think you can include USPRO. The 1970s was when
the ABLA became the USCF. The original pro group was not
much like USPRO as it was when merged into USA Cycling.
Besides, Jackie Simes Jr. was more driven by the status of
professional and track cycling in general than any oil
issues and I remember him being the driving force in the
early U.S.Pro (but this is memory and I could definitely
be wrong).

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

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> >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.

AASHTO is much more than a recommendation; by building to
AASHTO standards, you have strong legal standing in the
event of a lawsuit. That is a very compelling reason to
build a road a certain way, regardless of who's paying for
it. (For those feeling lost, AASHTO is an acronym for
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> 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...

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> >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.

That is correct. Currently, justification is required to
show why the needs of bicycles & pedestrians should be
included. This would change to requiring justification for
why such needs are not needed. This does not require anybody
to build bike & pedestrian-friendly transportation systems;
it simply requires that they give it thought.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> 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 23:59:37 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> AASHTO is a recommendation in most cases.
>
>
>AASHTO is much more than a recommendation; by building to
>AASHTO standards, you have strong legal standing in the
>event of a lawsuit. That is a very compelling reason to
>build a road a certain way, regardless of who's paying for
>it. (For those feeling lost, AASHTO is an acronym for
>American Association of State Highway and Transportation
>Officials)
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

More of an issue for smaller jurisdictions. Counties and
above tend to be unconcerned with that aspect of AASHTO.
More so when we are discussing bike facilities. I'll have a
site on-line soon that shows a bike path built as part of
the East Coast Greenway that is woefully short of AASHTO
guidance and, even worse, was built at the expense and
endangerment of the on-road riding space along side.

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

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Here, they paint a white X where you need to position your
bike. It's usually in one of the wheel wells about a couple
feet back from the stop line. These work very well, and if
they don't, the City's very responsive in fixing them. They
want to meet you out at the intersection, though, to test
it. I spent about twenty minutes in the pouring rain,
running over the X over and over again while they
fiddled with the system one morning, so you have to be
committed, apparently, to working with them to fix it if
you report problems.

The guy in charge of the program came to our last City Bike-
Ped Advisory Group Meeting. He wanted to know if we liked
the X better on the left or the right. Most bicyclists like
it better on the right, but the motorcyclists like it on the
left. My opinion: it depends on the intersection, which I
guess isn't all that helpful to him

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Email me re: the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)

 

[Brent Hugh]

Top Sirloin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Luigi de Guzman wrote: 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.

If anyone is curious to see what the federal laws &
regulations actually say about bicycle accommodations, you
can read most of the the important bits here:

http://mobikefed.org/2004_02_01_newsletterarchive.html#1-
07577513607363228

There is more here to help the cause of routine
accommodation on all roadways than is usually given credit.
And accommodation doesn't by any means need to be bike paths
or even bike lanes. Something as simple as an "improved
lane" (which could be nothing more than a wide curb lane, or
even just a normal width lane with bicycle hazards dealt
with) is considered a perfectly legitimate bicycle facility.

RE: your particular gripe, these federal laws/regulations
would apply whenever federal-aid highway dollars are
involved. This means they would apply to most all federal
highways and state highways. They can apply to projects
on city streets if the city is doing a special big
"upgrade" and applies for federal money to help with it.
But for routine building and maintenance of routine city
streets, the fed. gov't isn't involved and these rules
wouldn't apply.

The other side of the question, though, is that one of the
major advances in ISTEA (1991) and TEA-21 (1997), which will
certainly be continued in the TEA-21 renewal (now underway
in Congress), is that a MUCH greater degree of community and
local government involvement is required in every planning
process, whether it's for a particular project or a general
transportation plans for a metro area or for a state.

Another watchword of TEA21 is local control and flexibility.
TEA21 mandates "safety and contiguous routes" for bicycles
and pedestrians, and the development of a "multimodal"
transportation system. But it leaves most ALL the details to
the discretion of the local governments.

So it turns out that TEA21 actually REQUIRES the sort of
local involvement that you are hoping for. If bicyclists
really want to change things, they need to speak up more and
demand more at that local level. There is plenty of
opportunity to let your voice be heard now. But it is STILL
rare (at least in the Midwestern US, where I live) for even
one participant in these public forums to bring up the issue
of bicycle accommodations, bicycle safety, bike-safe grates,
etc. etc. etc. When they don't hear from us, it's no wonder
they don't plan for us . . .

--Brent

bhugh [at] mwsc.edu www.MoBikeFed.org