NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/bicycles/soc/1274

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 5.8 KB | 113 lines

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!philabs!trintex!elr
From: [e-mail] (Ed Ravin)
Subject: Re: Cycling and Environmentalism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Closet Motorhead Conspiracy :-)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:43:48 GMT
Lines: 102

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Howard Gerber) writes:

> Just because many environmentalists try to deny that they have any
>differences
> with cyclists does not meant that these differences do not exist. I've
>been to
> too many meetings in which environmentalists have with one breath told
>us how
> wonderful it was that we rode bicycles, and with another breath said
>something
> like, "of course we all agree that the only safe place to ride bicycles
>is on
> off-road trails."

As has been posted already, there isn't a card-carrying conspiracy of
environmentalists that you can complain about.  Perhaps all of us (that
includes me too) should start qualifying the kind of people we're talking
about -- clearly the people Howard has encountered in Houston (or the people
I've encountered on the East Coast) cannot be stereotyped as "all
environmentalist" or "all bicycle advocates".

> Reducing automobile traffic by voluntary usage of bicycles is not the
>same thing as attacking the use or facilities for motorists.

I was talking about attacking the expansion of motor vehicle facilities,
as well as redirecting transportation resources for a more equitable
distribution across all modes.  Believe it or not, this benefits motorists,
because if you can divert people out of their cars into a more efficient
form of transportation (i.e., anything but the single-occupant vehicle),
then motorists will find less traffic, more available parking, etc.

> I have been very actively pressuring such a "bicycling advocacy
>organization," the Houston Mayor's Taskforce on Bicycle Mobility. ...
>.... The prevailing view of most of the members with significant political
> authority is that the only thing that can be done for the road is to
>post "Bike Route" signs on any good roads that they can find. Millions of
>dollars are available for trail improvement, but somehow bicycles as
>transportation is not considered important.

If this was the position of any government authority in the NYC metro
area, every bicycle group that I know about around here would complain
vigorously about it.  Maybe that's what has to happen with the Houston
area bike advocates.  These folks obviously need to hear more from cyclists,
and the Mayor needs to appoint commuter cyclists to the taskforce.

> ER> They also want metropolitan transportation planning agencies to stop
> ER> promoting automobile transportation above all other options, and to
> ER> stop building roadway infrastructure that encourages automobiling to
> ER> the exclusion of anything else.
>
>Now I can see definite problems with an organization like that. I want
>better roads. I want roads that have wide outside lanes, so that motorists
>can safely pass bicyclists. I want intersection signals to work for
>bicyclists. ... Most of my vision of better cycling includes better roads.

I didn't say that "bike advocates" don't want better roads.  I said that
"bike advocates" want to be involved in the planning so that road design
isn't just for autos.  All of the things you want (wide outside lanes,
signal timings for cyclists, etc) are not automatically put in when a road
is widened -- you have to ask for these features and to remind planners
that cyclists exist and use the roads too.  To do that you have to be involved
with the local and state government and make sure you're included in the
public review process that's supposed to be part of roadway planning.

There's only so much pie out there to spend on transportation -- if cyclists
don't speak up we're going to get an empty plate.

> ER> They're also concerned about land use issues and the spread of
>suburban sprawl, which separates workplaces and homes so that non-automobile
>travel becomes untenable.

> This is a rather irrelevent issue to many cyclists that I know. If you
>can find a job, even if you have to ride 30 miles to get there, you take
>it. I know I have. If we could somehow legislate prosperity, and could
>guarantee everyone a job within walking distance, now wouldn't that be
>nice? Get real!

I am real!  If you don't complain about a problem, who's going to know that
it has to be fixed?  This is the most difficult problem for bike advocates
to address, and they certainly can't address it alone.  For bikers to
address this, they must be in coalition with other neighborhood advocacy
groups, and must come to some form of consensus about what kind of development
would be right for that particular area.

> Forester is not upset about cycling organizations that advocate
>improvements
> for cyclists, he is concerned about that same groups that I'm upset
>about, groups that tell people to bicycle because it is good for the
>environment, good for the political situation, etc.

Let's start naming names and not stereotyping.  I'd be upset about those
kind of folks too, like the executive director of a local development
corporation in the Bronx who wants to turn a railroad right-of-way into a
parking lot rather than a bikeway.  But she's not an environmentalist,
and I wouldn't sully the word by calling her one.

Again, I see more agreement here than disagreement.
--
Ed Ravin- [e-mail]| I like to think (and the sooner the better!)
  [e-mail]| Of a cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers
           [phone]| Live together in mutually programming harmony
my opinions, nobody else's| Like pure water touching clear sky.  -R. Brautigan