« Even with rebalancing, bike sharing is still low-carbon transportation | Main | Rock Creek Park EA and FONSI have been released »


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

Fine, but stop the whining when I'm riding at whatever the heck speed I want in the middle of the lane of whatever street I want.

Which will now include the GW Parkway north of Alexandria and the Rock Creek Parkway (which, BTW has the world's most dangerous "bike path" alongside it).

Hey, that bike path is pretty awesome. On a mountain bike with no people around.

The highway trust fund problem is a serious one, btw. No one wants to do the evil deed needed to make it solvent, but I do kinda want to keep my job.

They can install a toll booth on the CCT, W&OD and MVT. Insert a quarter and ride through.

I'm happy to pay my full share of the social cost of riding my bike, when drivers pay their full share of the social cost of strapping 4,000 pounds of metal, glass and plastic to their backs and burning fossil fuels fossil fuels to power their personal transport.

A carbon tax that starts out as a revenue neutral substitute for the gas tax and is then ramped up is the most rational way to solve the insolvency problem short-term. Then develop user fees for vehicles that actually degrade road surfaces. As for taxing cyclists I would be fine paying something if I knew the funds were being used for cycling projects. So put a check box on the Federal tax form for a Bike Trust Fund and put reps from LAB, Bikes Belong, etc. on the board.

The highway trust fund has serious problems. Bikes are not the cause of the problem. If anything, they are part of the solution.

Cyclists are already paying for the bike lanes--the money for that comes out of the taxes I pay, just like the money for the rest of the road.

We're probably the best for paying our use, but I doubt we even pay the full cost. Which of course makes me think the whole transportation system is rigged.

The way to get the GOP on board is have some good studies indicating the money saved. Ie, but a net volume a 3% decrease in DC-area traffic equates to X less use on roads wear and tear, X faster, and reduces health care costs for an economic impact of X. I guarantee it's a good outcome. Just have to have something solid to say so.

Subsidizing transportation is probably something we should do, just as we subsidize the park system (which also has a user fee).

I think that a belief that "studies" will sway congress members to act ignores the production of dozens of studies of global warming and the lack of a response from Congress. Also, pretty much everything else.

There's also the study about bikeshare and head injuries, which continues to be twisted completely out of all connection with the actual... facts. The percentage of injuries that were head-related increased, but that is some weird statistics fetish. Total injuries seem to have decreased, and so did head injuries.

Fewer injuries, fewer head injuries, and yet the media are portraying this as somehow a bad thing. Maybe too many fantasy baseball fans out there, who care more about statistics than what is actually beneficial?

For example, this story on FOX 5:


The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader