« Anacostia Riverwalk Bridge over Beaverdam Creek and Boardwalk | Main | Montgomery County's MBT plans are ready for review and comment »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Totally agree. I used to read his blogs, which were initially very positive and inclusive and pro-cycling. But it's all become much nastier and sanctimonious, particularly since he started his consulting business. I replied to his tweet about the lanes a few weeks ago. I take them every day with my kid on my bike and I am thrilled that they are there!

Even if the PA bike lanes could be improved, lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better to create some decent infrastrucure. We have a long way to go before can can be compared to Copenhangen with about 10x the bike mode share.

I agree that M. Coleville-Anderson has not given thought to the politics behind the Pennsylvania bike track, and while I do believe that it is better than no infrastructure, I think a few misunderstandings are taking place in this post.

First, in the picture you include, the bikes are not "right next to a speeding car" in the same way I am right next to a speeding car when using crappy painted lanes. They have their own separate infrastructure in the form of a raised cycle track separated from the road by a curb. I don't know about you, but I do not tend to drift over curbs while I drive. I do, however, tend to drift over paint because it's less obvious where the barrier is and there's no immediate repercussion for driving over paint (e.g., screwed up tires).

I personally would like to see curb-separated bike tracks on streets like 15th and Pennsylvania avenue, and preferably have them be single-direction on either side of the road. This allows for increased bicycle capacity and minimizes the need to repaint, but like we've said, this is all muddled by the political shit show that is bike infrastructure in the U.S.

In your second picture, you criticize MCA for sitting in the street and drinking wine (which is supposed to be ridiculous) AND the biker speeding down the road by him. This is a low-speed street in CPH, where they don't provide trakcs or infrastructure on roads where there is a speed limit below a certain number. This is because studies have shown that the risk of death/injury from a collision (and the likelihood of collision, i believe) drops ENORMOUSLY on roads beneath a certain speed limit. A lot of residential roads and back ways in CPH are like this.

Third, while I agree that there might not be a one size fits all approach to bike infrastructure like MCA recommends, and that there is probably room for innovation in bike infrastructure, his recommendations are a good starting point and emphasize that we don't need to reinvent the wheel every time we undertake a bike infrastructure project. His model emphasizes consistency and flexibility; not every road needs new infrastructure, but there are some where corners should not be cut and we need to build curb-separated lanes to make it safe for cyclists and reduce the risk of cars ignoring infrastructure. Yes, plastic poles are a start, but they break and are honestly unsightly and I, at least, would much rather them be metal footrests so I can rest on them at lights. (This is just my opinion.)

While MCA's criticism of the Pennsylvania Ave bike track was unnuanced and rooted firmly in his belief in his own system, I think it's always worth asking "how can we make our infrastructure better?" and not being satisfied with what we are given if we view it as a compromise. We should keep pressing DC gov not to give in to special interest groups like AAA and to truly commit to their Vision 0 project and the desire to reduce traffic/congestion.

n the picture you include, the bikes are not "right next to a speeding car" in the same way I am right next to a speeding car when using crappy painted lanes.

If he intended that nuance, he failed to mention it. You may not drift over curbs when you drive, but drivers do. If there is a curb in that photo, it is a very low one.

In your second picture, you criticize MCA for sitting in the street and drinking wine

No I criticize him for acting like biking in a part of the street set aside for cyclists is tantamount to sitting in a chair in the street that is not set aside for that.

I agree that we should push for the best possible infrastructure, and I think Pa Avenue could have been (was even) better. But it's not a failure by any means and since THAT was what his post was about, it's just entirely wrong.

If he wants to write a post about how it could be better, or the difficulty of building great infrastructure in the face to political opposition, that would be something I'd like to read. But saying "Every city should do what Copenhagen does" is like saying "All the kids on this middle school basketball team should just play like LeBron James. And if they don't, then they're failures."

He used to do great posts where he took pictures of streets and reimagined them with new bike infrastructure. I wish he would have done the same for the Penn Ave bike track. It's nice when it's constructive, but not when it's just outright critical. (Michael Goodno does not need to be fired...he's a good guy who knows how biking works in Copenhagen, from what I've gathered.)

Re: the curbs, after living in Copenhagen for 6 months and biking every day, not once did I ever see a car jump the curb. It more or less felt like you were in a completely different world from cars when you were on the bike track infrastructure. (The increased capacity of bicyclists that infrastructure brings also makes it less likely for someone to drive into a swarm of people.)

Thanks for this post and for your response. Pennsylvania Ave's bike track is better than nothing (and better than just paint) and a good foothold to start pushing for more consistent, safer infrastructure. We need a bicyclists' union!

"One rule of thumb to consider is a simple one. If you don't see an infrastructure design in the Netherlands or Denmark, it's probably a stupid infrastructure design."

I, too, have a rule of thumb. If I hear someone telling me that if only our whatever-bike-related-thing here were more like the way they do it in the Netherlands or Denmark, I tune them out because I'm busy throwing up.

I said some of this on GGW but this is all a specific genre of bike criticism that is some nicely done concern-trolling.

If you want to criticize some bike project find some design flaw using schematics or google streetview and then declare the project a failure despite all the evidence of the facility being both safe and well used.

That way you just muddy the waters about what should be genuine concern and reflection over what's best for cycling along a particular street while maintaining the appearance of not just being anti-bike lanes.

Its a favorite tactic of strong vehicular styled opponents. Weird that here all the useage data is dismissed as "engineering" when the criticism is over how the lanes are designed.

I think it's always worth asking "how can we make our infrastructure better?" and not being satisfied with what we are given if we view it as a compromise.

That's just the thing - there's not a single sentence of that post expressing any interest in understanding how or why the Penn Ave cycletrack was designed this way. Nor is there any interest in understanding how it might be changed in the future.

How can he effectively argue for change when he shows no interest in understanding the mechanisms of change?

I think the bike infrastructure we implement should always be the absolute Platonic ideal of what cyclists could hope for. Otherwise, we shouldn't even bother.

I used to read his blogs, which were initially very positive and inclusive and pro-cycling.

I pretty much stopped reading him when he went off on a jeremiad about how advocacy of any form of "vehicular cycling" was verboten:

"So...how are we supposed to ride when there aren't separate bike facilities."

"Well, that's just dumb. There should be bike facilities! Stupid Americans!"

Extremely helpful stuff.

Mikael Colville-Andersen was called out for being a creep toward female cyclists before https://takingthelane.com/2012/07/24/a-critique-of-cycle-chic-tm/. The guy is clueless and I wish he would just stop commenting on anything cycling related.

Well said washcycle!

Wow. I am perhaps the lone dissenter. Floored by the support of the Penn design, and weird defensiveness ("Danish Motherfuckers) of almost every post. Here are the points:

1. Lots of people use Penn. Yes. People will use the best there is because it is the best that exists. I was equally shocked by how many people use H street NW as a bike route at 830am. Of course people reported Penn ave is safer. It can still be a horrid design. U-Turns?

2. Barren Wasteland: One of the four design standards? A protected intersection does not require a person to ride next to traffic. I have to agree with our Dane: despite the "architecture and trees etc." the metaphor to me works well. With the center as a pedestrian island, reduction of lanes and PHYSICALLY separated cycletracks next to the sidewalk, it could be a much safer, more pedestrian friendly place.

3. Unique qualities of the road: "major parade route every four years and a National Park in its own right". A pedestrian median and physically separated cycle track were not considered because it is a major parade route every 4 years? A 4 lane freeway called a park?

I can't begin to tell you all how depressing these opinions are. I'm sorry. Let's call Pennsylvania Avenue what it is: a freeway. Imagine DC without freeways.

Gotta disagree with eawrist...too many red lights to call Pennsylvania Ave a freeway.

Floored by the support of the Penn design, and weird defensiveness ("Danish Motherfuckers) of almost every post.

I wouldn't say it was support of the Penn design, except to the extent that it was the best possible design that Mayor Fenty was going to accept. Perhaps Gabe Klein should have threatened to quit, but I think that's a lot to ask - and it runs the risk of getting nothing.

"Danish Motherfuckers" really should have been "Danish, Motherfuckers". I was not calling the Danes motherfuckers. They're very nice people.

It can still be a horrid design. U-Turns?

It could be. Is it? It could also be a horrid design and not fail. The U-turns issue, as I understand it, has been fixed.

Barren Wasteland: One of the four design standards? A protected intersection does not require a person to ride next to traffic.

I'm not following these three sentences, but a protected intersection does require a person to ride next to traffic. Unless they're in a tunnel or on a skyway or a trail, they are next to traffic. Separated, perhaps, but still next to. Just as I was next to, but separated from, Amy Potter as I danced with her at the 8th grade St. Anthony's dance.

pedestrian median and physically separated cycle track were not considered because it is a major parade route every 4 years?

That is correct in part. Those things were considered, but they would have been rejected by our federal overlords (CFA and NPS) so they were never proposed.

A 4 lane freeway called a park?

Sure, if a 25 mph road with a half dozen stop lights can be shoehorned into the definition of a freeway. But definitely a park.

https://www.nps.gov/paav/index.htm

I always assumed the Penn bike lanes were sited largely for symbolic purposes. I hate riding one them. Really, why should I have car exhaust, commuter busses tilting toward me, and a complete absence of shade, when I'm on a clean, quiet bike? I take the Mall instead.

Okay sure, I avoid these lanes when I can because I like to ride faster than I can there, but they're not a failure. As pointed out, people use them, and most of the illegal U-turns have been prevented.

I have used them a few times when half the city is shut down north of the White House, and in that limited situation, where it's a given that you're going to be going slowly anyway, they worked pretty well. I felt more protected than dashing down Pennsylvania Avenue west of the White House while dodging illegal U-turning trucks and taxis.

That dude is what we call a tw*twaffle. And he seems to relish being one. Well-played response.

Has Copenhagenize ever actually done a consulting engagement in North America? Others get the North American business, like Toole Design, and Copenhagenize mostly works in places where the politics is not so autocentric, IIUC. I assume though there are places where Copenhagenize competes with firms that work in North America. Dissing North American results (and of course that is not hard) may have a business rationale.

I welcome and accept criticism about the PA Avenue bike lanes. There are many things I'd change about them.

But,

1. You have to at least acknowledge that the route is popular and most cyclists in the city like the lanes. MCA's argument seems to say "who would use these dumb bike lanes?" when the answer is that lots of people do. And these people weren't riding on Pennsylvania avenue before (or at all) anyway.

2. I too am confused at how you can't have separated lanes if you're somehow still "next" to traffic. Short of banning cars from particular streets how do you avoid that problem? Sidewalks on Pennsylvania avenue also seem to run alongside moving traffic.

Really, why should I have car exhaust, commuter busses tilting toward me, and a complete absence of shade, when I'm on a clean, quiet bike? I take the Mall instead.

Well for me, it is the most direct route. Most of the year, I'm glad to have the sunshine. And if you're going to ride around the city, car exhaust and buses are just things you have to deal with. The Mall is great - but it doesn't get me very many places. I'd rather hike the AT all the time, but it's got low utility.

"Really, why should I have car exhaust, commuter buses tilting toward me, and a complete absence of shade, when I'm on a clean, quiet bike? I take the Mall instead."

I'm not sure I understand how riding on Jefferson or Madison Drive is supposed to help avoid car exhaust and commuter buses. Those roads are a total shit-show pretty much 9 months out of the year..

Or are you talking about actually riding on the gravel paths on the Mall itself?

If the latter, then I think the question answers itself: I don't ride on the Mall because I have to get to work and don't want to ride at a walking pace.

Jefferson and Madison Drives are remarkably quiet in the mornings. Evening rush, they're a mess, but after that, they're quiet again, especially if it's not springtime.

This city has many kinds of bikers. Some obviously need the fastest and most direct route, but I'm far from the only one I know who wants a relatively quiet and clean air.

Full disclosure: I've met and participated in a course by Mikael Colville-Andersen last September in Copenhagen. Dude is a very dedicated, passionate individual when it comes to transport biking and urban design. He can come off as brash and his piece on the Pennsylvania Avenue cycletrack is well evident of that, especially with the silly cafe comparison. I had my own problems with the piece but for what it's worth, I replied to Mikael with a bit of context behind the lanes, including the disputed story of the linear park and short-lived design with bike lanes occupying the inner-most general traffic lanes and he was appreciative.

But can we agree that he still has a point regarding Pennsylvania Avenue?

Let's be honest here: the Pennsylvania Avenue cycletrack is an inherently flawed design. I'm almost certain that no one disputes this, given the years of dodging U-turns (it took five years to install any sort of protection!), the baked-in constant conflict with pedestrians waiting mid-block, the environment that pressures you to race, etc. Mikael did not know the prologue that gave us what we have today, but I think the gist of his argument is how flawed our bike infrastructure in the United States. Yes, people ride it (including me) but it can and should be better! People also ride in the stupid bicycle lanes around Columbus Circle, but that does not mean they're appropriate.

I believe his points regarding Denmark and the Netherlands is that they have been designing and building fantastic, best-practice bicycle infrastructure for years through trial and error. The US and other countries/cities tend to discard this and try to come up with our own solutions. But why? Why do we see the need to reinvent the wheel when the hard work has been done ages ago? For example: bi-directional cycletracks. Right now it's one of the options considered for 6th or 9th Street, NW. Denmark used to build them but abandoned them decades ago because they found they were not as safe as other designs and recommend one-way separated cycletracks on each side of the road. Bi-directional cycletracks are now only used for off-street paths, but here we are considering installing them in DC. I testified against the bi-directional lanes and advocated for separate lanes in February for this very reason.

And he picks on Copenhagen and other Danish cities just as much for stupid stuff they've done and are thinking of embarking on.

You guys are looking too deep into the Cycle Chic stuff. I think it's pretty clear that the point of the project is to show that the infrastructure in Copenhagen is safe and comfortable enough to allow one to ride a bicycle without dressing up in specialized gear.

"The US and other countries/cities tend to discard this and try to come up with our own solutions. But why? Why do we see the need to reinvent the wheel when the hard work has been done ages ago?"

No one is discarding it. What we react to is the assumption that it is the only way to do it. And there are good reasons to look at the approach fresh each time we face it here. First, here is not there. Our built environment is different--heck, our natural environment is different. Second, our political system is different. Fiats laid down by centralized planners that essentially order people to do what's good for us would cause a rebellion in a people who relish our right to do things that are not good for us, because freedom! And third, creativity is great. We really might come up with a better way to do it.

I like the PA lanes and feel much safer on them now that they are somewhat protected...But can we talk for a second about the last (southernmost) block of 11th street, just before PA ave? That block you ARE in a single, one-direction lane with speeding traffic going both directions right next to you. Lots of buses too, and cars making turns mid-block to get into various parking garages...and the guys at Central using the northbound bike lane as a valet parking dropoff area...that whole block is a huge mess.

OK SMdc, but then your problem is not this facility, it is with the idea of biking in the Penn Ave corridor at all.

But can we agree that he still has a point regarding Pennsylvania Avenue?

No I can't, even while I agree that it's a flawed design. It's not even the design that DDOT wanted. If that had been his point, I'd agree with it. It wasn't his point. His point was that it's a failure.

And to follow Crikey's point, the upside of redesigning the wheel is that sometimes you end up with a better wheel. After all, you might need different tires in Canada than in Mexico.

Remember that scene in Apollo 13 when they dump all the stuff on the table and tell the engineers that this is everything on board the spacecraft and that they have to use it to adapt the filters they have to fit the CM system? If MCA were there he'd be saying "Why don't we just use the filters that are designed for the CM? Why are we re-inventing the wheel? We've already solved this problem, it isn't rocket science." And then Tom Hanks would be dead. I don't want Tom Hanks to die because I really liked Toy Story 3. Sometimes circumstances require the re-invention of the wheel.

Okay, I agree. Pennsylvania Avenue is not a failure (except of political will in election years) as Mikael puts it. It's gotten people cycling, is a huge symbolic victory to have bike lanes on America's Main Street, and so on. But put yourselves in the shoes of someone who's just visiting DC and sees these lanes, both on bike and foot.

You're waiting in the pedestrian island waiting to cross the rest of Pennsylvania Avenue when WHOOSH! A stream of cyclists blow past you, probably berating you or dinging their bell as they pass, while you wait in what you thought was your refuge. You'd be pissed and think "whoever designed this is an idiot!" Someone may say "Well they actually wanted a safer design but blah blah blah" and you may feel better, but you'd still be pissed they went with such a stupid design.

Same with on a bike, as I experience every morning and evening when people, unaware that a cycletrack rides through their refuge island, stand in the middle. It's not their fault, but rather the design is for placing them there.

We may know the context, but this is hardly of comfort to someone actually using the facilities.

For the claims we might invent a better cycletrack...that'd be one thing if we were doing something that was unique and hasn't been tried before. But usually our brand new infrastructure is stuff other countries used to do, until they developed better infrastructure. Why not start with what they have and work from there? How many more people have to be hit by cars in painted lanes between parked cars and traffic before we have our "Eureka!" moment and flip that arrangement?


I should clarify that when I call it a stupid design, I'm not dinging Mike, Jim, or any of the other folks at DDOT's bike team. They wanted better and the Mayor folded at the first sign of controversy. My rants are more directed towards the powers-that-be :)

you'd still be pissed they went with such a stupid design.

OK. When people have incomplete information they make wrong conclusions. I'll agree to that.

Flawed design? sure.

Needs improvement? I'd welcome it.

Failure? Absolutely not. The lanes attract cyclists like a magnet and if we can replicate all over the city we'd be on our way to Copenhagen anyway.

we'd be on our way to Copenhagen anyway

Blaaaaaaargh!

Copenhagenize, ironically, is much like the radical VCers.

Cope - this is flawed, you could have a much safer design if you took out more traffic lanes, disregarded park/design constraints, etc
Planner - but that is not politically feasible, especially with the modest size of the biking constituency
Cope - politics, bah!


VCer - If you had proper enforcement and education, 20 is plenty, absolute deference to the more vulnerable road user, completely confident riders, you would not need ANY seg infra
Planner - but that is not culturally or politically feasible!
VCer - politics, bah!

Plus what Drumz said.

Many of us (Crikey excepted) really want Dutch style (isn't Danish infra inferior to Dutch, BTW?) seg infra - but it is hard to get there until we have a greater critical mass of people on bikes. We have to get there by steps.

"Usually our brand new infrastructure is stuff other countries used to do, until they developed better infrastructure."

Then we become offended when this is pointed out.

Thanks Greg (not Billing)

Then we become offended when this is pointed out.

Where did MCA point that out? Where did he say "Oh this? We did this, and while it was better than what had been there, we found a better way"?

It doesn't seem you understand what it is about MCA's post that I find offensive.

Copenhagenize, ironically, is much like the radical VCers.

I was thinking the same thing, but in a different way. VCers say "A cyclist is a driver on a bike. They never ever need separated bike facilities."

MCA says "A cyclists is a pedestrian on a bike and they should always ride separated from cars. And only hard separation will do."

The truth is actually somewhere in between.

I was fantasizing about this last night. I would really like bike boulevards everywhere I go. They should not have pedestrians or runners on them, and all the cyclists should travel at the same speed I do. No one should ever pass me, and I should never have to pass anyone. They should be downhill when I'm going to work or the store, but have good uphills when I want to work out. They should be designed so that I can go 25 whenever I want, but also be okay if I feel like tooling along at 15. There should be no car exhaust, and there should be lots of flowers--and ponies--lining them on both sides.

Failing that, I'll take what we're doing now, perhaps with a bit more rapid progress. And drivers who watch what they're doing and behave safely. Oops, slipped back into fantasy land again.

It's so difficult to remember how much better things are than they were when what you are working for is perfection. But what we have now is not a failure; it's a work in progress.

I'm not a Forester groupie by any stretch, but I think there's a fundamental difference between MCA and VC, and it's that MCA is prescriptive, and VC is descriptive.

This Pennsylvania Ave critique is actually bog standard MCA:

"There's only one way to build cycle infrastrcture!"
"What if it's not politically feasible?"
<**static**>

Same with his approach to VC:

"Stop telling people to ride in traffic like a vehicle! They should ride in protected cycleways!"

"Right, but there are no protected cycleways. Should they just not ride bikes?"

<**static**>

I haven't dug too deeply--and I'm probably wrong on this--but I think it's a misrepresentation to say the VC crowd is actively against comprehensive cycling infrastructure.

If anything, they're against bad cycling infrastructure. And they have a point.

Oh, and--aesthetics aside--the only problematic feature of the Pennsylvania Ave cycletracks I can see at this point is the lack of pedestrian refuge and the resultant conflict.

I'm finding the VCers vs. MCA comparisons silly. One group seems to be about designing a bicycling system for themselves while the other is about developing a bicycling system for everyone.

But oh well, let's accept our painted lanes and pretend they're world class infrastructure! We're not Europe! We're not Copenhagen! We're not Amsterdam! We're Americans and we love to live dangerously!

One group seems to be about designing a bicycling system for themselves while the other is about developing a bicycling system for everyone.

But it isn't. MCA doesn't think you should ride in the street. He doesn't think you should ride fast. But guess what, I like riding fast and in the street sometimes.

What they both have in common is an inflexibility that seems unwilling to accept that everyone who is riding a bike is basically doing it right - regardless of how or where they ride or what they wear (as long as they're not being jerks. Those people are doing it wrong).

But oh well, let's accept our painted lanes and pretend they're world class infrastructure!

No one is saying that. I'm saying let's follow the old Eisenhower doctrine during WWII "Do what you can with what you have and do it now." Painted lines is what we can do right now. I'd love to capture Berlin, but sometimes all you can get to is the next hill.

"the only problematic feature of the Pennsylvania Ave cycletracks I can see at this point is the lack of pedestrian refuge"

There's also the problem that if you're going west and they shut down the Ellipse, the lanes basically go nowhere that the type of people who want to use them would go. Sure, I'll take 15th past all the vendors and stopped cars to Constitution to Virginia, but it's not a pleasant ride, and I'm certain there are plenty of people who just wouldn't do it. I don't know what they do.

But it's part of a network that's improving. I'd like to see a solution to it, but that closure only happens every couple of weeks.

I suppose it's pretty difficult not to become negative and jaded about everything.

DE, funny. I use them all the time and I never go to the ellipse. I always go north on 15th to Penn and then either west on Penn or north on 15th.

I'm finding the VCers vs. MCA comparisons silly. One group seems to be about designing a bicycling system for themselves while the other is about developing a bicycling system for everyone.

Again, that mischaracterizes the VC position (as I understand it). VC is about maximizing one's safety in the existing built environment. The VC critique focuses on its inadequacies of cycling infrastructure. So, for example, VCers argue against contraflow bike lanes. Or sharrows that are positioned in the door zone.

Greg, I ask you this as a proxy for MCA: What is the Copenhagenize alternative to VC in a city or classic suburb with *no* cycling infrastructure? Drive to a bike trail? Move to Denmark? Seriously, what?

There's also the problem that if you're going west and they shut down the Ellipse, the lanes basically go nowhere that the type of people who want to use them would go. Sure, I'll take 15th past all the vendors and stopped cars to Constitution to Virginia, but it's not a pleasant ride, and I'm certain there are plenty of people who just wouldn't do it. I don't know what they do.

Well, if they're Cycle Chic adherents they reorient their lives such that they either never go west of 15th, or they give up cycling completely and just drive everywhere.

Otherwise, they do as you do and take the lane as VC has been advocating for decades... :)

Right, but when the Ellipse is closed, then Penn between the WH and Lafeyette Square is usually also closed. (That's the way I usually go, but will default to Ellipse or Constitution when Lafeyette is closed.)

When I use the Ellipse, I use the parking ring, not the sidewalk, btw. Followed a friend once through on the sidewalk and never again.

What's the Ellipse route? Are you guys riding E Street between 15th and 17th or something?

the VC position

I'm talking about the radical VC position. The one that is 100% anti-bike lane, anti-MUT and anti-sidewalk cycling. You don't hear from them much anymore, but 20 years ago, they were very vocal

If you look at the Ellipse, the southern curve of it. While there are parked cars of both sides, it's mostly traffic free. You just pick it up at 15th (requires a brief stint of sidewalk to get to it), ride out to the other side, and pick up C Street to Virginia or take 17th back up to G or Pennsylvania (or wherever).

"I haven't dug too deeply--and I'm probably wrong on this--but I think it's a misrepresentation to say the VC crowd is actively against comprehensive cycling infrastructure."

VC means two different things - one, an approach to riding given what we have, and two, an approach to infra and policy. I have definitely seen people taking the latter approach - arguing against almost any proposed seg infra on the grounds that it promotes the wrong and unsafe way to bike. There are of course lots of people who support more seg infra who will use VC techniques in their own riding.

When challenged on how to make VC style biking in general travel lanes safe and comfortable for everyone, the response is usually that enforcement and education will do it, and that seg infra is giving up on those.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader