City's transport plan to get update

[nebport5]

The article also states some of the attendees were concerned that mass transit wasn't addressed.  I'm all for more biking options, but given the 8 months of un-bike-able weather, mass transit should be the primary objective.

[bigredmed]

Sketchy neighborhoods and public schools do more to drive westward expansion than any transportation issue.  I agree that mass transit issues vastly outweigh bike paths.   This is what you get when mayor fumbledom hires a bike expert and not a mass transit expert.  

UNMC faculty tell me that their reloc agents just take them to the eastern border of millard school district and tell them that from here west is OK.   Perhaps a strong arm on this practice?

[nebport5]

Sketchy neighborhoods and public schools do more to drive westward expansion than any transportation issue.  I agree that mass transit issues vastly outweigh bike paths.   This is what you get when mayor fumbledom hires a bike expert and not a mass transit expert.  

UNMC faculty tell me that their reloc agents just take them to the eastern border of millard school district and tell them that from here west is OK.   Perhaps a strong arm on this practice?

Some would argue that a lack of urban renewal and further westward expansion greatly contributes to "sketchy neighborhoods".  Anyway, the further west we grow the greater the need for east to west transit.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

...given the 8 months of un-bike-able weather...

Yes, and anyone who skis, hikes, ice-skates, sleds, plays hockey, snow-shoes, hunts, camps, tailgates, walks, or otherwise spends any time outside of their home or automobile during those months is just crazy. You just don't see it, huh?, 'cause those 8 months are just so unbearable and restricting.



That's pure lack of understanding out of never having biked through the winter. Ignorance of the unknown, I guess. It's really not that big of a deal; indeed, I find winter bike-commuting more invigorating and addictive than summer bike-riding. For a case-in-point, see the fact that Minneapolis was ranked America's #1 bike-friendly city, and that's not based on people only bicycling 4 months out of the year.

Although some people at the meeting demonstrated this very common misunderstanding, there was, thankfully, a very large constituency of bicyclists of all types present. Furthermore, City Leaders, MAPA, and the consultant also "get" that bicycling and walking cannot be separated from a balanced, year-round transportation system.

bigredmed,
You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of urban issues, urban economics, and the effect of suburbanites' (most Americans) actions and choices on urban residents' quality of life (or, more often than not, the lack thereof).

[Linkin5]

...given the 8 months of un-bike-able weather...

Yes, and anyone who skis, hikes, ice-skates, sleds, plays hockey, snow-shoes, hunts, camps, tailgates, walks, or otherwise spends any time outside of their home or automobile during those months is just crazy. You just don't see it, huh?, 'cause those 8 months are just so unbearable and restricting.



That's pure lack of understanding out of never having biked through the winter. Ignorance of the unknown, I guess. It's really not that big of a deal; indeed, I find winter bike-commuting more invigorating and addictive than summer bike-riding. For a case-in-point, see the fact that Minneapolis was ranked America's #1 bike-friendly city, and that's not based on people only bicycling 4 months out of the year.

Although some people at the meeting demonstrated this very common misunderstanding, there was, thankfully, a very large constituency of bicyclists of all types present. Furthermore, City Leaders, MAPA, and the consultant also "get" that bicycling and walking cannot be separated from a balanced, year-round transportation system.

bigredmed,
You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of urban issues, urban economics, and the effect of suburbanites' (most Americans) actions and choices on urban residents' quality of life (or, more often than not, the lack thereof).

[Uffda]

...given the 8 months of un-bike-able weather...

bigredmed,
You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of urban issues, urban economics, and the effect of suburbanites' (most Americans) actions and choices on urban residents' quality of life (or, more often than not, the lack thereof).

He's back.  :shock:

I as I said very seriously once before I hope that grad school has a class or two on how to express your ideas to the 'common man' without pissing them off or you will find yourself and your ideas in a windowless back office.

[omaja]

For a case-in-point, see the fact that Minneapolis was ranked America's #1 bike-friendly city, and that's not based on people only bicycling 4 months out of the year.

Minneapolis could have the best bike infrastructure with no one using it and someone would still call it "bike-friendly".  That title doesn't necessitate that people actually make use of MSP's bike friendliness during the winter months.  And with the number of vehicles in Minnesota almost 1-for-1 with the population, more people are likely driving than anything.

[Globochem]

Look, can we all just agree that biking is becoming a much more popular way for people to get around town, not just recreate.  The more people do this, especially in snowy months, it is imperative to have a traffic infrastructure to handle them.  This is as much preventative as it is aspirational.  Riding a bike as a commuter along trafficked, though most often shorter distance, corridors elicits all kinds of rabid hostility from drivers.  We can do well as a city to alleviate what is bound to become (if it already isn't) a dangerous flash point.

[HuskerDave]

Look, can we all just agree that biking is becoming a much more popular way for people to get around town, not just recreate.  The more people do this, especially in snowy months, it is imperative to have a traffic infrastructure to handle them.  This is as much preventative as it is aspirational.  Riding a bike as a commuter along trafficked, though most often shorter distance, corridors elicits all kinds of rabid hostility from drivers.  We can do well as a city to alleviate what is bound to become (if it already isn't) a dangerous flash point.

No, I'm afraid we can't all agree on that.  Liberals are wishing it - and somehow that justifies it.  Very few people bike where they need to go, and that's because this isn't the 1920s anymore.  Biking is largely recreational for most people.

As for 'rabid hostility' from drivers - I've never witnessed it.  Only when bikers intentionally impede traffic (as they sometimes do) are they honked at.  Of course, Liberalism does require a certain victim mentality, doesn't it?

[Globochem]

No, I'm afraid we can't all agree on that.  Liberals are wishing it - and somehow that justifies it.  Very few people bike where they need to go, and that's because this isn't the 1920s anymore.  Biking is largely recreational for most people.

Before you say something so exhaustively stupid again you should try to frame an argument that doesn't use the word "liberal" in it.  You could try to use facts.  Like: http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/st ... t%20trends.  

But I suppose we should just thank you for your service in honking anytime a cyclist "gets in the way".  Thank honking, plus the objects thrown, plus the insults hurled, happen almost anytime anyone tries to bike along a normal commuter path.  This isn't victimhood, it is REALITY.  Building bike infrastructure helps diminish those encounters.  Now stop trying to win a College Republican election and acknowledge that cycling is no more anachronistic than walking.  And yes, HuskerDave, we should build sidewalks, no matter how Bronze Age it is to walk.

[nebport5]

...given the 8 months of un-bike-able weather...

Yes, and anyone who skis, hikes, ice-skates, sleds, plays hockey, snow-shoes, hunts, camps, tailgates, walks, or otherwise spends any time outside of their home or automobile during those months is just crazy. You just don't see it, huh?, 'cause those 8 months are just so unbearable and restricting.



That's pure lack of understanding out of never having biked through the winter. Ignorance of the unknown, I guess. It's really not that big of a deal; indeed, I find winter bike-commuting more invigorating and addictive than summer bike-riding. For a case-in-point, see the fact that Minneapolis was ranked America's #1 bike-friendly city, and that's not based on people only bicycling 4 months out of the year.

Although some people at the meeting demonstrated this very common misunderstanding, there was, thankfully, a very large constituency of bicyclists of all types present. Furthermore, City Leaders, MAPA, and the consultant also "get" that bicycling and walking cannot be separated from a balanced, year-round transportation system.

bigredmed,
You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of urban issues, urban economics, and the effect of suburbanites' (most Americans) actions and choices on urban residents' quality of life (or, more often than not, the lack thereof).

Maybe a slight exaggeration on the 8 months, However, you're missing the point.  I've biked in the snow before(it sucks) and I'd much rather take public transit if I had the opportunity (which was my point).  Automobiles aside, do you think you can really convince more people to bike in the winter over public transit(if it was available)!?!?

Incidentally the traffic in Minneapolis sucks!

[nebport5]

No, I'm afraid we can't all agree on that.  Liberals are wishing it - and somehow that justifies it.  Very few people bike where they need to go, and that's because this isn't the 1920s anymore.  Biking is largely recreational for most people.

Before you say something so exhaustively stupid again you should try to frame an argument that doesn't use the word "liberal" in it.  You could try to use facts.  Like: http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/st ... t%20trends.  

But I suppose we should just thank you for your service in honking anytime a cyclist "gets in the way".  Thank honking, plus the objects thrown, plus the insults hurled, happen almost anytime anyone tries to bike along a normal commuter path.  This isn't victimhood, it is REALITY.  Building bike infrastructure helps diminish those encounters.  Now stop trying to win a College Republican election and acknowledge that cycling is no more anachronistic than walking.  And yes, HuskerDave, we should build sidewalks, no matter how Bronze Age it is to walk.

+1

[HuskerDave]

No, I'm afraid we can't all agree on that.  Liberals are wishing it - and somehow that justifies it.  Very few people bike where they need to go, and that's because this isn't the 1920s anymore.  Biking is largely recreational for most people.

Before you say something so exhaustively stupid again you should try to frame an argument that doesn't use the word "liberal" in it.  You could try to use facts.  Like: http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/st ... t%20trends.  

But I suppose we should just thank you for your service in honking anytime a cyclist "gets in the way".  Thank honking, plus the objects thrown, plus the insults hurled, happen almost anytime anyone tries to bike along a normal commuter path.  This isn't victimhood, it is REALITY.  Building bike infrastructure helps diminish those encounters.  Now stop trying to win a College Republican election and acknowledge that cycling is no more anachronistic than walking.  And yes, HuskerDave, we should build sidewalks, no matter how Bronze Age it is to walk.

I repeat - wishing it so doesn't make it so.  Your "evidence" is dubious, at best - what else would a biking blog say?  Bike commuters are a very tiny minority.

Your other comments, personal insults, stereotyping, and exaggeration (almost anytime anyone tries to bike), further erode any argument you're attempting to make.

[Bosco55David]

No, I'm afraid we can't all agree on that.  Liberals are wishing it - and somehow that justifies it.  Very few people bike where they need to go, and that's because this isn't the 1920s anymore.  Biking is largely recreational for most people.

As for 'rabid hostility' from drivers - I've never witnessed it.  Only when bikers intentionally impede traffic (as they sometimes do) are they honked at.  Of course, Liberalism does require a certain victim mentality, doesn't it?

I've never seen anyone with such an ability to inject politics (and utterly stupid ones at that) into every discussion they meet. Just curious, but do you check under your bed for liberals every night? It seems like you have some irrational fear of them.

[Big E]

Just curious, but do you check under your bed for liberals every night?

+1.

[Garrett]

Look, can we all just agree that biking is becoming a much more popular way for people to get around town, not just recreate.  The more people do this, especially in snowy months, it is imperative to have a traffic infrastructure to handle them.  This is as much preventative as it is aspirational.  Riding a bike as a commuter along trafficked, though most often shorter distance, corridors elicits all kinds of rabid hostility from drivers.  We can do well as a city to alleviate what is bound to become (if it already isn't) a dangerous flash point.

No, I'm afraid we can't all agree on that.  Liberals are wishing it - and somehow that justifies it.  Very few people bike where they need to go, and that's because this isn't the 1920s anymore.  Biking is largely recreational for most people.

As for 'rabid hostility' from drivers - I've never witnessed it.  Only when bikers intentionally impede traffic (as they sometimes do) are they honked at.  Of course, Liberalism does require a certain victim mentality, doesn't it?

Tell that to my geography teacher who commutes to Millard North everyday on a bike. From Benson. And bikers have every right to the road as you do. Actually, its the law that bikers are supposed to be on the road. And How the heck do they "Intentionally impede traffic?" According to traffic laws, bikes are to be treated like a normal car, given the same amount of space and considerations and under the same laws. Who has the victim mentality now?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

For a case-in-point, see the fact that Minneapolis was ranked America's #1 bike-friendly city, and that's not based on people only bicycling 4 months out of the year.

Minneapolis could have the best bike infrastructure with no one using it and someone would still call it "bike-friendly".  That title doesn't necessitate that people actually make use of MSP's bike friendliness during the winter months.  And with the number of vehicles in Minnesota almost 1-for-1 with the population, more people are likely driving than anything.

Well, you're right on all counts. But, in fact, Minneapolis is bike friendly 12 months out of the year (making sure trails and lanes are cleared in winter weather events, etc.), and people do make use of the facilities during the winter months---in great numbers. And yes, more people are still likely driving than anything. So, basically, you succeeded in typing a bunch of words but really saying nothing.

Globochem, well said.

Nebport, you're right, biking in the snow does suck, just like driving in the snow sucks. Fortunately, that's only the case a fraction of the time, and most people who "ride right" during the winter (i.e. on roads not sidewalks) experience the same road conditions as drivers: dry pavement. That said, to be truly bike-friendly (like MPLS) it takes full public works participation to make sure trails and lanes get cleared with the same level of priority as streets. But, like you pointed out, of course it is extremely important to have a robust transit network for people who maybe bike commute during mild months but would rather not during the winter (or for winter bike-commuters to use as a backup!).

[Linkin5]

Streets, the only times I road was during college when I absolutely had to and subsequently had about a dozen falls that had to be hilarious for anyone watching.  So I gotta ask are there winter thread bike tires that one can buy?

[ShawJ]

Streets, the only times I road was during college when I absolutely had to and subsequently had about a dozen falls that had to be hilarious for anyone watching.  So I gotta ask are there winter thread bike tires that one can buy?

I've used metal studded tires before that seemed to work pretty well (better for ice I think than snow).



But I don't have much experience so I'm not sure what the norm is.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Linkin, as ShawJ points out, yes; there are definitely metal-studded tires that work wonders on icy trails or the dreaded black ice. I'm actually thinking about getting some for the winter, but I have gotten by in the past by just switching out my smooth summer bike tires for a "grippier" road tire with more tread (similar to the picture, only without the studs).

Somehow, I have had amazing luck with crashes; in about three years of utility bike riding and bike commuting, including winters, I haven't had a single crash or really an incident of any kind. I can recall one "almost wipeout" on the trail by Lewis and Clark Landing in the winter of '09-'10 because of black ice on a poorly cleared trail.

If you or anyone else is interested in taking your bike-riding into the winter this year, I created a rather extensive bike-commuting guide for the Capital District Transportation Committee (the Albany Region's MPO) this summer which includes a significant section on inclement weather/winter bike commuting. I'd be glad to share that document with anyone!

Otherwise, the Vermont Agency of Transportation has put together a fine bike commuter guide that has a few winter riding tips on page 10.
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/Progdev/Docu ... eFinal.pdf

[omaja]

For a case-in-point, see the fact that Minneapolis was ranked America's #1 bike-friendly city, and that's not based on people only bicycling 4 months out of the year.

Minneapolis could have the best bike infrastructure with no one using it and someone would still call it "bike-friendly".  That title doesn't necessitate that people actually make use of MSP's bike friendliness during the winter months.  And with the number of vehicles in Minnesota almost 1-for-1 with the population, more people are likely driving than anything.

Well, you're right on all counts. But, in fact, Minneapolis is bike friendly 12 months out of the year (making sure trails and lanes are cleared in winter weather events, etc.), and people do make use of the facilities during the winter months---in great numbers. And yes, more people are still likely driving than anything. So, basically, you succeeded in typing a bunch of words but really saying nothing.

You can't keep claiming things like "great numbers" without anything to substantiate.  Bike travel makes up a small percentage of transportation regardless of how you slice it.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

The number of Minneapolis residents who are regular bicycle commuters is determined through the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The latest 2005-2009 data estimates that 3.5% (or 7,170) of Minneapolis commuters use bicycles. That’s nearly twice the rate of 1.9% (or 3,860) which was measured in 2000.

Source: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycle ... counts.asp

That's 3.5% compared to .55% nationally.
Source: http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/09/ ... ds-steady/

Minneapolis has the second highest percentage of bicycle commuters in the nation, according to a U.S. Census comparison of the nation’s 50 biggest cities.

Source: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/20 ... keCity.asp

And here's a report with information on the most recent bicyclist and pedestrian counts completed by the City of Minneapolis.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycle ... rt2010.pdf

Star Tribune Video: Winter biking just part of the year-round commute
http://www.startribune.com/video/12962607.html

[omaja]

Not sure that really helped your case (3.5% is a small percentage by any measure, no?), but thank you for providing actual numbers.

[Big E]

Not sure that really helped your case (3.5% is a small percentage by any measure, no?)

Over six times the national average is impressive, no?

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Yeah, I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make, omaja.

Yes, that's still a small percentage of the overall population and is the result of many factors that far outweigh pure mode choice---i.e. the horrible transportation planning habits of about the last quarter of America's existence.

As Big E pointed out, that's six times the national average! And the second highest of ALL BIG CITIES!

That low number is exactly what communities and governments are scrambling to change these days as the negative effects of Americans' auto-dependent ways become more and more painfully evident and because of the overwhelming positive effects of bicycling and walking infrastructure.

Besides, you asked for figures and I proved that your skepticism about bike commuting rates in Minneapolis was unfounded.  No one said "most people bike" or anything like that, because that's just not true. So again, I guess I just don't see the point you're trying to make.

[HuskerDave]

That low number is exactly what communities and governments are scrambling to change these ... because of the overwhelming positive effects of bicycling and walking infrastructure.

Two points to make here.

One - this highlights part of the problem I have with Street's argument.  "The government" already has too much impact in "scrambling to change" my lifestyle.  Why is it so hard for politicians to keep their hands off our personal lives.  Oh yeah, power and money.

Two - the positive effects of infrastructure?  Strange comment, but probably central to the mindset here.  Nobody is stopping Street from riding his bike anywhere he may wish to do so.  In fact, traffic laws are specifically written to protect bicyclists on the road.  This is further evidence of my first argument.  This is NOT about 'healthy lifestyle' choices.  It's about trying to dissuade anyone who drives a car, to satisfy the central-governing whims of those politicians who environmentalist activists like Streets unwittingly play for.

Just curious, but do you check under your bed for liberals every night?

I probably should.  They're already telling me how much water I can use when I flush the toilet or take a shower, what sort of detergent I can use in my dishwasher, and what sort of light bulbs I can use.  They've already announced that they're coming for my thermostat and lawnmower.  

They'll be in my bedroom soon.  Some might say they're there already.

[Big E]

They'll be in my bedroom soon.  Some might say they're there already.

You really think conservatives are going to give that area up without a fight?

[iamjacobm]

They'll be in my bedroom soon.  Some might say they're there already.

You really think conservatives are going to give that area up without a fight?

I wonder if HuskerDave knows that conservatives have a pretty large hand in starting this "anti-car government environment thing"

The '98 Transportation Equality Act was passed by a vote of 88 total votes in the senate, 48 of those votes came from Republicans.  That act of congress more than doubled federal funding for bike and walking infrastructure.  

History is a |expletive|.  

[Big E]

Dammit.  Here I thought we were just throwing around meaningless political bull |expletive| again.  You had to go and ruin the fun with facts.

[Bosco55David]

That low number is exactly what communities and governments are scrambling to change these ... because of the overwhelming positive effects of bicycling and walking infrastructure.

Two points to make here.

One - this highlights part of the problem I have with Street's argument.  "The government" already has too much impact in "scrambling to change" my lifestyle.  Why is it so hard for politicians to keep their hands off our personal lives.  Oh yeah, power and money.

Two - the positive effects of infrastructure?  Strange comment, but probably central to the mindset here.  Nobody is stopping Street from riding his bike anywhere he may wish to do so.  In fact, traffic laws are specifically written to protect bicyclists on the road.  This is further evidence of my first argument.  This is NOT about 'healthy lifestyle' choices.  It's about trying to dissuade anyone who drives a car, to satisfy the central-governing whims of those politicians who environmentalist activists like Streets unwittingly play for.

Seriously dude, you're starting to go off the rails here, and this comes from a guy who drives a 300 horsepower car and hasn't rode a bike in over a decade. Who cares if the government is promoting other forms of transportation. They aren't stopping you or me from driving our cars.

Goddamn.

I probably should.  They're already telling me how much water I can use when I flush the toilet or take a shower, what sort of detergent I can use in my dishwasher, and what sort of light bulbs I can use.  They've already announced that they're coming for my thermostat and lawnmower.

Those evil bastards! How dare they set regulations on energy and resource conservation and keep our water clean?!? Damn fascists!!

They'll be in my bedroom soon.  Some might say they're there already.

Like Big E said, conservatives pretty much have the "government in the bedroom" market cornered. [/quote]

[HuskerDave]

That low number is exactly what communities and governments are scrambling to change these ... because of the overwhelming positive effects of bicycling and walking infrastructure.

Two points to make here.

One - this highlights part of the problem I have with Street's argument.  "The government" already has too much impact in "scrambling to change" my lifestyle.  Why is it so hard for politicians to keep their hands off our personal lives.  Oh yeah, power and money.

Two - the positive effects of infrastructure?  Strange comment, but probably central to the mindset here.  Nobody is stopping Street from riding his bike anywhere he may wish to do so.  In fact, traffic laws are specifically written to protect bicyclists on the road.  This is further evidence of my first argument.  This is NOT about 'healthy lifestyle' choices.  It's about trying to dissuade anyone who drives a car, to satisfy the central-governing whims of those politicians who environmentalist activists like Streets unwittingly play for.

Seriously dude, you're starting to go off the rails here, and this comes from a guy who drives a 300 horsepower car and hasn't rode a bike in over a decade. Who cares if the government is promoting other forms of transportation. They aren't stopping you or me from driving our cars.

Goddamn.

I probably should.  They're already telling me how much water I can use when I flush the toilet or take a shower, what sort of detergent I can use in my dishwasher, and what sort of light bulbs I can use.  They've already announced that they're coming for my thermostat and lawnmower.

Those evil bastards! How dare they set regulations on energy and resource conservation and keep our water clean?!? darn fascists!!

They'll be in my bedroom soon.  Some might say they're there already.

Like Big E said, conservatives pretty much have the "government in the bedroom" market cornered.

[/quote]

There's a common string in all the responses I see.  

If it's done by someone perceived as Republican or Conservative, we're going to make signs and march on Washington - but if it's a Democrat or Liberal idea, we're going to call a Republican a racist, bigot, earth-hater, and homophobe.

I don't agree with big government ideas, or federally-controlled (when they should be local) infrastructure spending, no matter who votes for it.  As much as I think Bush was a decent man and a brilliant post-9/11 President, his overspending angered me.  

Seriously, Bosco - whether you think throwing fruit at conservatives for having the 'government in the bedroom' market "cornered" (a childish  and ill-informed comment) - do you really need the federal government, regardless of who is in charge, digging further into your personal life?

[Zilla]

Guys, Guys!!  We need to stop this petty bickering and get back on topic.  Which is "Disagreeing with Streets."

[Linkin5]

Streets, the only times I road was during college when I absolutely had to and subsequently had about a dozen falls that had to be hilarious for anyone watching.  So I gotta ask are there winter thread bike tires that one can buy?

I've used metal studded tires before that seemed to work pretty well (better for ice I think than snow).



But I don't have much experience so I'm not sure what the norm is.

Do they have any large enough for my penny farthing?

[Big E]

There's a common string in all the responses I see.  

If it's done by someone perceived as Republican or Conservative, we're going to make signs and march on Washington - but if it's a Democrat or Liberal idea, we're going to call a Republican a racist, bigot, earth-hater, and homophobe.

The only common string I see in the responses here is that none of what you just said happened actually happened.

Don't go full-tilt DeWalt on us just yet.

[omaja]

Yeah, I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make, omaja.

Yes, that's still a small percentage of the overall population and is the result of many factors that far outweigh pure mode choice---i.e. the horrible transportation planning habits of about the last quarter of America's existence.

As Big E pointed out, that's six times the national average! And the second highest of ALL BIG CITIES!

That low number is exactly what communities and governments are scrambling to change these days as the negative effects of Americans' auto-dependent ways become more and more painfully evident and because of the overwhelming positive effects of bicycling and walking infrastructure.

Besides, you asked for figures and I proved that your skepticism about bike commuting rates in Minneapolis was unfounded.  No one said "most people bike" or anything like that, because that's just not true. So again, I guess I just don't see the point you're trying to make.

Just pointing out that percentages don't mean all that much without context.  And maintenance expenses related to bike infrastructure must be pretty high on a per-capita basis with such low usage.

[iamjacobm]

Yeah, I guess I don't see the point you're trying to make, omaja.

Yes, that's still a small percentage of the overall population and is the result of many factors that far outweigh pure mode choice---i.e. the horrible transportation planning habits of about the last quarter of America's existence.

As Big E pointed out, that's six times the national average! And the second highest of ALL BIG CITIES!

That low number is exactly what communities and governments are scrambling to change these days as the negative effects of Americans' auto-dependent ways become more and more painfully evident and because of the overwhelming positive effects of bicycling and walking infrastructure.

Besides, you asked for figures and I proved that your skepticism about bike commuting rates in Minneapolis was unfounded.  No one said "most people bike" or anything like that, because that's just not true. So again, I guess I just don't see the point you're trying to make.

Just pointing out that percentages don't mean all that much without context.  And maintenance expenses related to bike infrastructure must be pretty high on a per-capita basis with such low usage.

1.5% of the federal transportation funds were spent on bike/pedestrian projects in '09.  .6% of Americans bike and 2.9% walk.  So their funding is pretty low per capita.  Obviously there are some variations to the number.  I bet most city sidewalks come out of street funding and the pedestrian part means ped bridges and trails ect, but over all it seems like bike and pedestrian projects are rather fairly funded to funded a little lower than they should be.

Also the king of small government Ron Paul has suggested giving tax breaks to people that commute by bike.  So this isn't some crazy liberal agenda obviously.

There are supporters and dissenters on both sides of the aisle, but it isn't some huge plot to get anyone out of their car.  It is to give us(everyone) more viable options and with a little research you can find that the funding for the issue isn't taking more than its fair share.

[Bosco55David]

There's a common string in all the responses I see.  

If it's done by someone perceived as Republican or Conservative, we're going to make signs and march on Washington - but if it's a Democrat or Liberal idea, we're going to call a Republican a racist, bigot, earth-hater, and homophobe.

I don't agree with big government ideas, or federally-controlled (when they should be local) infrastructure spending, no matter who votes for it.  As much as I think Bush was a decent man and a brilliant post-9/11 President, his overspending angered me.  

Seriously, Bosco - whether you think throwing fruit at conservatives for having the 'government in the bedroom' market "cornered" (a childish  and ill-informed comment) - do you really need the federal government, regardless of who is in charge, digging further into your personal life?

LOL WUT?

Seriously, it's already been mentioned that none of what you claim here has actually happened, but then again I seriously question the cognitive abilities of anyone who uses "Bush" and "brilliant" in the same sentence, but that is neither here nor there.

While your economic philosophy is your own to have, it's largely a relic of decades gone by. Furthermore, I fail to see how your conspiracy theory laced posts have much to do with this thread. Your whole argument has basically been nothing but a diatribe against liberals. It's even more hilarious that you actually tried to argue some policy here even though the reality of the matter (the push for biking infrastructure being strong at the local level) aligns with what you say is acceptable government spending.

Quite funny. Seriously.

Oh, and believe me, there is absolutely no debate that it's conservatives that want to stick their noses into people's bedrooms. If you really want to get into debating that, start a thread in the appropriate forum and I'll be happy to educate you. Lastly, I'd be pretty hard pressed to give you examples of ways in which the federal government is involved in my personal life. Maybe you can give us some examples.

[StreetsOfOmaha]

Dave, everyone else has done a pretty good job of handing it to you already, so I won't say too much; but I will comment on two things.

"The government" already has too much impact in "scrambling to change" my lifestyle.  Why is it so hard for politicians to keep their hands off our personal lives.

You seriously have no clue how much government spending is responsible in almost every way for your "lifestyle". I mean, come on. You're really joking, right? This is all a joke? Nobody's that clueless, are they?

Infrastructure of this kind has EVERYTHING to do with quality of life---everything---regardless of if you actually use it personally! That's the beauty of it. You should be in favor of it. The next time you see a bike commuter, or a transit rider, or a walker, you should thank him or her for your parking spot at work and for making your commute less congested. You should thank them for not making the air you breath any worse (which they couldn't say the same of you). You should thank the bicyclist and the walker for not contributing to the deterioration of roads, and for your lower taxes as a result. You should thank them for their better than average health and for helping to keep your insurance premiums lower by paying into the system when they don't need as much care. You should thank them for still supporting your lifestyle with their taxes despite the fact that you aren't willing to do the same for them when their mode-choice makes the world better and your mode-choice makes the world worse.

Yours is the ignorance that's keeping this country from being great.

Nobody is stopping Street from riding his bike anywhere he may wish to do so.

Based on research done by Alta Planning + Design in Portland (graphic featured on page 33 of the presentation linked below), 60% of the population are interested in incorporating bicycling into their lives as a means of transportation but are too concerned about the very real issues of safety to make the switch. Bicyclists have to, on a daily basis, deal with uninformed, ignorant motorists yelling at them and harassing them to get off the road and have to deal with the ever-present possibility that the car they hear fast approaching behind them might be the one that kills them and you have the nerve to say "nobody is stopping you from riding your bike anywhere"?

http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content ... tation.pdf

[Globochem]

Despite HuskerDave's Libertarian zealousness, there is a legitimate argument to be had about the size and scope of government.  That argument would make more sense in a forum called: "Omaha to start paying living wages" or ""City to permit gay marriage".  Here, however, the forum is labelled  "City transport plan to get an update".  A change in the transport plan in not a change in the size and scope of government, rather it is precisely what the government (or municipality) is charged with.  

Reallocating funds to encourage multimodal transport may have some slight overall increase in the transportation budget, something that would be arguable, I suppose, but is laughably small in scope compared with car related projects.  Think. The West Dodge Expressway will cost more than all of the bikepaths ever considered in Omaha, ever. I will also cost about as much as a streetcar.  And although we don't consider its construction an overreach of government, it is undoubtedly a government outlay.  All of the unending road expansions, right-of-way acquisitions, bridge reconstructions, grading, and landscaping of a car dominated city scape cost a LOT of money.

It is wise to take some portion of that money and enrich the options for transportation.  This isn't theoretical.  We want safe streets; streets that have sidewalks for pedestrians and room for bikers.  We want mass transit to be accessible and reliable.  We want a transportation plan and city building code that when combined enriches the community with vibrant walkable, mixed use districts that truly allow people to leave their car and still enjoy fecund transit options.  

This shouldn't threaten the driver.  Drivers already pay exorbitant licensing fees, and there are ANY realistic transit alternatives.  Roads are widespread and congestion is relatively low.  None of this will change.  I will never understand the objection of spending a measly amount of money to encourage alternative transport.  Biking, walking; sidewalks, bike lanes.  As for the more expensive vanity projects like streetcars and reliable mass transit, I still believe that a healthy, dynamic, productive and creative city is a walkable one.  

But drop the "Government's got no business building bike lanes" nonsense.  That is precisely its business.

[HuskerDave]

As information, 98.552% of all statistics are made up.

The other 100% are just damned lies.