bike paths are a waste of money and shouldn't be part of an economic stimulus

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) was on Face the Nation Sunday morning and had some thoughts about the need to quickly pass a "responsible" stimulus plan. Here's a link to a story on the TheHill.com

“I think there’s a place for infrastructure, but what kind of infrastructure? Infrastructure to widen highways, to ease congestion for American families? Is it to build some buildings that are necessary?” He stated. “But if we’re talking about beautification projects, or we’re talking about bike paths, Americans are not going to look very kindly on this.”

I am an American and i am not looking kindly on the idea of widening highways during oil wars and impending depression while also disregarding bicycles as transportation. The irony is killing me. Its it that crazy of an idea to the federal powers that bicycles are freakin' transportation?!?! Widening highways would cause more problems than it would solve and eventually that solved problem will only be the same problem but bigger and wider!

and here's another similar situation, check out this post on bicyclespokesman.com about a bike path near Washington DC that is not being built, but a 6 lane highway will be built!

Anyways, shoupy gave me a heads up in this along with with Rep. Boehner's contact info.

We wrote him, you should to! Post a copy of your letters in the comments.

ps. By the way, "...widen highways, to ease congestion for American families?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? I didn't watch the news last night, or the night before, but did I miss some big story about the new biggest threat to our family life as we know it like: Millions of American families suffer congestion due to skinny highways...film at 11.

pps...don't read more....WRITE MORE! give 'em a piece of your mind!

. Read more!

When is it not worth it?

I would definitely stop riding if I had to ride this thing.

The venerable Bikesnob NYC once queried about what would make a cyclist stop riding. He mostly wrote about what sorts of absurd bikes or outfits would stop you from riding. There are some doozies in there, but he doesn't write about the biggest riding-preventer out there: the weather.

Here is some bad Canadian weather.

It's really, really gross today. It iced all night and now it's raining. As I passed the Institute of Living, a place for reflection, I wondered what the hell I was doing. It was wet and gross and I was riding to work. I like my job ok, but it's still a job. And there was I, plodding along on the sidewalk in ice and slush looking like a fool. Why I was I putting myself through this? This begs the question: when is it too gross to ride a bike and when is a destination not worth a gross bike ride? Read more!

Acclimating

Cold bike! Also, have I used this picture before? Not having a camera is forcing me to do a lot of recycling.

Now that it's been cold for a few days now, I feel like I'm comfortable in the cold again. Instead of my numb fingers and toes being an unbearable pain, they've become the standard feeling while outside. I've also started doing that pursed lips breathing by habit now.

Speaking of riding your bike to work, there are big doings in New York right now. The Council is looking at two bills that would benefit bike commuters regarding bike parking in buildings and parking structures. It'd be very cool legislation if it passes. New York seems to be notorious in barring bicycles from buildings. Hartford, at least in my experience, is pretty good. My bike has a happy home in the foyer of my office and also had a happy home inside at La Paloma Sabanera. However, the flip side for Hartford is that we have no bike racks anywhere. Loyal readers may recall me writing about attending meetings about getting bike racks around six months ago. Well, I was promised by the Parking Authority that we'd have some racks on top of the parking meter polls back in July. I haven't seen anything and I've stopped holding my breath.

Image from blayleys.com. Shrunken like this makes it not look blurry from the bumps.

Finally, I've decided that I'm going to do the D2R2 next year, the 106 mile route. I think it'll be awesome and difficult. Or, awesomely difficult. Or, difficultly awesome. Anybody wanna do it with me? I think Johanna wants to do it. If we all do sub-ten hour rides, the northeast cycling community will have tons of respect for the beat. Read more!

Intersection Puzzler: Founders Bridge Edition

This is a thought-exercise I think of just about every time I pass through this intersection. The above Microsoft Spy Satellite photo shows a quirky intersection at the end of the Pitkin St. exit ramp in East Hartford. The 2 roads at the bottom of the pic are the ramps to/from I-84. Pitkin St. is labeled, and the road at the top is an entrance to the Founders Plaza business park parking lot. All four arms of the intersection are controlled by a standard traffic light. (Click the photo for a larger version.)

Now the path that hits Pitkin on the right hand side of the photo is the pedestrian/bicycle path coming off the Founders Bridge which I use on my daily peregrination to my place of business. Cruising off the hill from the bridge, I get a pretty clear view of all four streets as well as the traffic light since it's elevated. Generally, I can time my speed and judge by the state of the traffic light and the pace of the traffic in all four directions to make my left onto Pitkin without losing my momentum off the bridge.

My query: I can make an argument that I correctly obeyed the traffic law by zooming through my left turn without stopping for either one of the traffic light's two states. If the green light is in the ramp/parking lot direction, I can say that the bridge path is in the same direction in its intersection with Pitkin and I therefore have the green light. However, if the Pitkin St. traffic has the green, I can argue that when I actually get on Pitkin, I have not yet entered the intersection that the light controls due to the entry point of the bridge access path, so I therefore can claim the green as I proceed on Pitkin.

Which interpretation do you fine readers think is the correct one?

I only pose this because last week, I made my usual left turn and had to dodge a car careening out of the opposite parking lot at about 20 mph, making a right on red. Had we collided, I'm certain the driver of the car would've been at fault since he wasn't even close to coming to a complete stop before making the right on red. But I wanted to know if my argument "I was on Pitkin proceeding through a green light" is legally kosher.

We also had some confusion with this exact traffic light on a Critical Mass this past summer as some people stopped at the bottom of the path for the light and others proceeded unfettered.

Here's one more photo of the same intersection from the opposite angle only because the "birdseye view" feature of Microsoft Live Maps is both scary and cool, kinda like Google Maps StreetView. Read more!

E. Hartford Screwed Me!

Bullseye!

I picked up this happy little fellow in my front tire about a half mile from the office this morning. The wheel held its air to get me the rest of the way. Of course now I'm thinking about how both my spare tube and patch kit are foolishly sitting in my other bag at home. Word to the wise: when you decide to switch bags impulsively, make sure you transfer other things. On the bright side, I get to ride the bus home tonight in luxurious warmth and comfort. Route H2 represent! Read more!

new ride to work

I moved to Fairfield Ave and slept there for the first time last night. Thus, this morning I had my first new commute.

Yt's pretty much all downhill, so I get to work right quick. I thought that cutting through the Trinity College campus would make things easier, but people actually drive worse there. Some asshole in a minivan decided that rather than wait for the weird green golf cart thing in front of him to get out of the way, he should try to get in a head-on crash with me.

Not the same minivan from this morning, this one is much cooler.

Vernon Street. I could stop at CLIO on the way home tonight for their weird/dirty Halloween party.

Also, Vernon Street has cobblestones. The Paris-Roubaix thing is kinda cool and I do have 32 spoke wheels, so I shouldn't break a wheel. They also wake you up.

Hopefully the return trip is as much fun.

Here's another crazy minivan:

Read more!

KAPOW! Car accidents

Monday evening, I got out of work a little after 6 pm and was riding my usual route on Tolland St. in East Hartford. I was thinking about how I should replace my blinkie batteries soon for the upcoming time change, and also how in the twilight it was difficult to see since it was still too light for the street lights to be very effective. All of a sudden, about 50 feet or so behind me, I heard some really startling sounds:

*CRACK!*
Crunch.
Scrrrraaaaaaape.

I quickly put on the brakes and spun around just in time to see the end result of a pretty substantial rear-ending of two cars. As far as I could tell, I think someone merged onto Tolland from the weird S-curve on Burnside and just didn't see the car in front of him. My first reaction was that oncoming traffic might not see the lead car resting in their lane, so I immediately used my corking skills and started signaling for those cars to slow down and use caution.

Being pretty mobile on my bike, I also realized I was the closest person on the scene to check on the condition of both drivers, so I turned back to do just that. The lead car's entire rear bumper was lying in the street. That driver was on her phone, and had a passenger who was also talking. Both people were wearing seat belts and signaled to me that they were OK. The striking car was about 30 feet or so in the other lane, and had a really smashed up hood. About this time, a woman in a 3rd floor apartment (corner of Tolland and Ann) started shouting out to me asking if everyone was OK. I shouted back that I was checking and that I had a phone to call the police. She responded by saying she had already called 911 and just wanted to let them know if anyone was seriously hurt. As I approached the 2nd car, I noticed that a tow truck had come up from behind and had parked (probably seeing a business opportunity) with its flashers going right behind, thus alerting oncoming traffic to the accident. The driver of the 2nd car was just getting out of the vehicle, and verbally told me he was OK. I stuck around until the police arrived on the scene...probably another minute or two. The officer asked me what I saw and I told him that I didn't see the impact because it was behind me, and he thanked me and told me it was OK for me to go.

So it wasn't a serious accident or anything, but a couple of things went through my mind: 1) being mobile on a bike is a pretty quick way to negotiate the scene of an accident and 2) wow, that was close. If those cars were 50 feet behind me, a little different timing or whatever could have had that sliding car completely taking me out. Being aware of cars which are in control of some strangers is one thing...cars coming at us when they are not in control of the driver is something else.

At first, the thought occurred that maybe the first car was reacting to seeing me and my reflectors/lights on the road, and the 2nd car didn't expect that reaction. Seeing where the cars ended up, I determined that this wasn't the case. I've never actually seen an accident happen in real life, but now I've heard one at close proximity, and it's pretty unsettling. Read more!

Sharrows Explained

Karma's recent post along with his excellent photos of the new road markings in West Hartford got me wasting a perfectly good Monday evening scouring the intrawebz looking for some information on that pattern that I remember seeing sometime before. Rather than bury the results of my research in the comments section of his post, I thought this information would better serve the community as a separate post.

I've never seen such a thing actually implemented in person until they appeared in West Hartford, but the new markings aren't just a result of someone in the WH government smoking crack. They're called "Sharrows" (which I'm guessing is the result of some fan of mashing words together got when they looked at "shared" and "arrows") and they have become implemented in just the manner that we've seen in West Hartford in an increasing number of bike savvy cities: San Francisco, Portland, and Boulder, for example.

The brief history is that this particular design and use was started in Denver in the mid-90s. Generally, they were ignored elsewhere, until a 2004 study released by the city of San Francisco recommended sharrows be implemented to mark shared-use roads. Caltrans (the CA state DOT) adopted the markings that same year and use has expanded. In 2007, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices unanimously voted to endorse the marking in federal manuals of traffic control devices.

The two main purposes of these markings are: 1) to alert motorized traffic that the road is to be shared and 2) to correctly position cyclists outside of the "door zone" of parked cars. This also serves to correct the bad habit of bikes traveling on the wrong side of the road, as well as encourage not-so-experienced cyclists that it's OK to take the lane. We'd probably see fewer a-hole drivers screaming at us to get out of the road, too. It's important to point out that in general, they aren't preferred to a dedicated bike lane, but rather recommended in areas where the streets are too narrow or dangerous to have such a lane.

The only problems I see with the markings in West Hartford is the previous designation of the side stripes as being a "bike lane," and the absolute lack of communication about these markings. We've all seen how cars are often in that side lane, and we've complained about it a lot on this blog. I think someone somewhere made a mistake at calling those things on the sides of Boulevard "bike lanes" and it was decided to make these routes "shared roads," and the sharrows were eventually laid down. The sharrows are even defined in the West Hartford Master Bike Plan. (see page 19). However, the fact remains that there has been NO COMMUNICATION by the town or state government about these markings and how to use them. When some of the most experienced cyclists I know in the region seem confused by these markings, you would think that some form of public announcement, or press release, or some mention in the newspaper would be in order. At the MINIMUM, a mention on the town's website. Nothing. When SF implemented them, they put PSA signs on city buses as part of their educational campaign.

There's some great reading on the sharrow movement, and I'll throw a list of links down in order of usefulness:

• Christian Science Monitor 2005 article (interviews advocates and critics)
  
• Bike Pittsburgh Shared Lane Markings FAQ (brief & informative)
  
• Bike Commute Tips Blog
  
• SF's 2004 Shared Lane Markings Study (very interesting) - .pdf
  
• SF-MTA presentation on Sharrows (Sept. 2008) - .pdf
  
• Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams (mmmm, beer)
  
• Proposal for shared markings in Ithaca, NY (my college town! ITH represent!)
  

After consuming all this, I'll say I'm in favor of sharrows, as long as cyclists and drivers get educated about them, what they mean, and how to properly use them. Read more!

Roads: The New Bike Lane.

I took this picture shortly after composing this post which discussed an incident in which a bicyclist was hit at the intersection of Boulevard and Whiting Lane in West Hartford. As can be seen there are newly painted bicycle images in the middle of both lanes! I had never seen such a symbol in this area of the road and spent a few moments trying to figure out what they meant. This is a section of Boulevard between Troutbrook and Prospect but I have also seen them further along Boulevard, past Main Street, and along Quaker north of Farmington Ave. Most of these are areas where the oft-discussed shared bike/parking lanes have been created. So while the city has stopped short of painting bike symbols in the lanes they have painted these new images directly in the road! What does this all mean? My argument is that it confirms the fact that the road IS the bike lane! The images are a subtle suggestion to drivers that bikes and cars share the same infrastructure and a quiet reminder to motorists that bikers may be in the road. However if one looks at the picture below the reality is that much of the time the bike/parking lane is more of a parking lot and the road is our travel lane.

As you can see the bike lanes are full and riders are forced into the street. So are the new images a positive move to warn drivers of the presence of bikes or are they a failure to properly execute the bike lanes? Of course when I look at the pictures above I think delusionally of a time when the cars are relegated to the fringe parking/travel lanes and bikes take the primary center lane as the spray-painted alabaster icon suggests.

Read more!

Bike Benefits in Bailout Bill?

So while some of us are tried to follow the political maneuvering related to the $700 billion bailout, or rescue package recently passed, many of us (myself included) were equally confused as to the many legislative implications of the bill. In researching the legislation in an attempt to educate myself I came across a little bit of pork patched into the bill that aroused some curiosity for my bike-commuting self.

While im neither a fan of the bill, nor am I of pork (literal or legislative), Sec. 211 of the bill (H.R. 1424) has interesting potential for individuals who regularly ride their bike to work.

Sec. 211 is an amendment to previous transportation fringe benefits found in Section 132(f) of the tax code. The bill allegedly attempts to spread the benefits received by bus and train commuters from Sec. 132(f)(these include supplementing payment for bus and train passes and for parking fees) onto bike commuters. Supposedly the individual who regularly uses their bike to get to and from work would be eligible for $20 in monthly compensation from their employees (if they participate) up to a total of $240 per year. This would include as the bill states,

"reasonable expenses incurred by the employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage."

So we as bike commuters would be able to write off (or perhaps charge our employers for) tubes, tires, lube, chains, perhaps even portions of the cost of new bikes if we ride to work regularly. As far as my research shows, the expenses would be a tax write-off for participating companies although im not sure if it would be a direct financial benefit to employees, or simply a deduction from their pre-tax earnings. I'd be curious to see how you all read into it, particularly the lawyer types among you. While some arguments ive read have stated that this benefit only equates to $1 per day, or $0.50 each way, and as such is not much of an incentive to commute by bike. My argument, as someone who rides regardless, is that this is $20 in maintainance I might potentially not have to pay for.

While I have read numerous discussions regarding the application of this legislation, its intended effects, and the probable benefits to be had by commuters, im still left largely confused. The funny thing is this bill was added to the bailout to appeal to a Representative Earl Blumenauer from Oregon who voted against the bill its first time around. The hope was this addition would bring him on board to support the bill. While the bill passed Blumenauer failed to approve its second ride around!

If you want to read up a bit more check here, here, and here.

For you law junkies ive included the transcript of Sec. 211 after the break!!





SEC. 211. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(D) Any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.'.

(b) Limitation on Exclusion- Paragraph (2) of section 132(f) is amended by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting `, and', and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) the applicable annual limitation in the case of any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.'.

(c) Definitions- Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(F) DEFINITIONS RELATED TO BICYCLE COMMUTING REIMBURSEMENT-

`(i) QUALIFIED BICYCLE COMMUTING REIMBURSEMENT- The term `qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement' means, with respect to any calendar year, any employer reimbursement during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of such calendar year for reasonable expenses incurred by the employee during such calendar year for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if such bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee's residence and place of employment.

`(ii) APPLICABLE ANNUAL LIMITATION- The term `applicable annual limitation' means, with respect to any employee for any calendar year, the product of $20 multiplied by the number of qualified bicycle commuting months during such year.

`(iii) QUALIFIED BICYCLE COMMUTING MONTH- The term `qualified bicycle commuting month' means, with respect to any employee, any month during which such employee--

`(I) regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion of the travel between the employee's residence and place of employment, and

`(II) does not receive any benefit described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1).'.

(d) Constructive Receipt of Benefit- Paragraph (4) of section 132(f) is amended by inserting `(other than a qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement)' after `qualified transportation fringe'.

(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.

Read more!