« Dumping Snow on a Shoveled Sidewalk | Main | Eastern Dowtown Protected Bike Lane meeting do-over much less contentious »


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

Heritage keeps making the same arguments with the same holes. Its like a more polite version of Limbaugh.

I credit them with engaging it with half their brain. Honestly, it reflects more thought than most such exercises. It's wrong, of course, which engaging their full mental faculties would have revealed.

I am just happy that Heritage is contributing $70K to Bikeshare so that fewer federal $ are necessary: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18440/heritage-will-charge-closer-to-market-rate-for-parking/

The somewhat self-destructive war waged by conservatives against urban cycling infrastructure is a fairly recent phenomenon. In 1965, a candidate for New York Mayor proposed a government-constructed elevated bikeway in Manhattan from 125th Street to 1st Street, to be financed by a small user fee (not unlike CaBi). The candidate explained that the "purposes of the Bikeway are (a) to ease the traffic problem; (b) to provide New Yorkers with an opportunity to exercise and so to stimulate their health; and (c) to provide pleasure for those who take pleasure from the sport and desire to turn it to functional use in going to and from work, to shop, to go to movies and theatres, etc."

The name of this candidate was William F. Buckley, Jr. Although his mayoral bid was not successful, his ideas about cycling as transportation proved far ahead of their time, being largely adopted by New York and other cities 50 years later. (Source: William F. Buckley, Jr., "The Unmaking of a Mayor" (1966), p. 305).

Did Heritage's new bikeshare station just open? This guy is mad his employer thinks it is a good idea, in fact $70,000 reasons why lol. What a funny rant, especially with those psuedo facts sprinkled in.

@John A. Neat tidbit about Buckley who knew?

I'm not an English teacher or even English, but I'll off an opinion on the comma: Its presence signifies that "veritable" modifies not "cost effective," but "transportation," thereby calling into question whether bikeshare is transportation at all.

Anyone who can't examine their assumptions is not intellectual, but could well be an asshole.

I find articles like this hard to read. I prefer it when people just make the point they want to make in a cogent paragraph, rather than line by line rebuttals.

I read this article Friday and was so annoyed. Thank you Washcycle for calling him out, but I'm not really satisfied until he acknowledges his hypocrisy.

He never acknowledges that motorist user fees like gas tax, tolls, and car ownership tax only cover 50 cents on the dollar of all highway funding according to the Tax Foundation, so why doesn't he focus on making roads also self sufficient?

how do you get this guy to acknowledge that roads by percentage are far more subsized?

From the Heritage Foundation article: "a continuous stream of federal funding provides entities with little incentive to control operating costs."

My observation is that this is only true for state transportation departments building freeways. All other agencies, WMATA, DASH (an other local bus services), Capital Bikeshare, ets., are falling over themselves to control costs. Even local transportation agencies worry about repaving costs.

Heritage Foundation has little credibility on fiscal issues and even the so called libertarianism which it purports to promote:


They've never found a war program or subsidy to a large company via the DOD that they didn't like.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader