Obama new policy :)

[norcalbiker]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_536791.html


Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the government is going to give bicycling – and walking, too – the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Keep it to cycling related content. Thanks . . .

BBD

[zap]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=71363

[fiamme red]

Keep it to cycling related content. Thanks . . .

BBDI'll start. He isn't wearing a helmet, and he's setting a bad example not just for his daughters, but for all the children of this country. ;)

[rugbysecondrow]

Joe Biden...is that not a GREAT reason to wear a helmet Mr. President?


All kidding aside, it is not a good example to set.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . because that's how the flamefests start and keep it to cycling or it's gonna get locked up faster than you can say "Eddy Merckx." :no:

BBD

[Kirk007]

I'll be at a Great American Outdoors Conference tomorrow and Pres. Obama is speaking - I'll try and thank him AND tell him to wear a helmet!

[rugbysecondrow]

LaHood says the government is going to give bicycling – and walking, too – the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money.

It will be interesting to see the projects they select for funding and how tight they stay to this standard. I think it is great to make bikes a viable form of transportation, but to say, "This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized," along with the statement above about bicycling being the same importance as automobiles...well that is just not true.

This would be such a drastic shift in policy, especially as it relates to projects that the DOT actually participates in, that I find it little more than lip service.

Locally is still the best bet as far as furthering the safe bicycling agenda.

[BumbleBeeDave]

[I]This would be such a drastic shift in policy, especially as it relates to projects that the DOT actually participates in, that I find it little more than lip service.

Locally is still the best bet as far as furthering the safe bicycling agenda.

. .. I'm keeping in mind that he said this at a cycling summit to a room full of cycling related advocates. But even if it just results in any sort of funding to further cycling infrastructure anywhere in the country it's going to be an improvement on what we have in so many places now. There seems to be so much disconnect in what's needed and no enforced standards. For instance, Schenectady is making progress on bike trails so people can get downtown, but ride down there and there are few/no places you can actually lock your bike. So how many people are actually going to ride their bikes down there to do anything?

BBD

[Kirk007]

. But even if it just results in any sort of funding to further cycling infrastructure anywhere in the country it's going to be an improvement on what we have in so many places now.

BBD

It is all local but with this in mind there are some opportunities. For instance my organization has worked in one of our locations to advocate for multimodal pathways that could be utilized by pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and wildlife! to traverse otherwise dangerous road crossings; and by working with a diverse group of local stakeholders and some willing state DOT folks (often a major impediment), they were able to get some stimulus funding to make some of this happen. And there are initiatives in many communities, at least in the Pac NW, to create more sustainable communities and the transportation grid is a huge part of this. Little steps to be sure but getting some top down support provides some leverage with the local DOT folks.

[johnnymossville]

I see areas along my morning ride to work that could EASILY be made more bicycle friendly. There is one wide avenue (Five Lanes Total) with a totally unused center lane and no shoulder on the sides. That center lane could easily be done away with and bike lanes could be incorporated on both sides of the street.

I grumble all the time while riding it, but never do anything about it. Maybe one of these days,....

[Ray]

I......by working with a diverse group of local stakeholders and some willing state DOT folks (often a major impediment)....Little steps to be sure but getting some top down support provides some leverage with the local DOT folks.
This is where this could be very important if the Feds put any real policy muscle behind this. As Greg said, state DOT folks are often THE major impediment. Locals communities will want their road projects designed in a way that accommodates ALL modes of travel, but an awful lot of people in power in the state DOTs pre-date this mindset and are enormously resistant. Since most of the money the state DOTs have to spend depends on an enormous federal match, having the feds putting pressure on from above, in addition to the community pressure from below, may finally shake things up in some state DOT bureaucracies. Something like a federal requirement that any project using federal money must either safely accommodate all modes of travel or have the burden of showing why its not feasible (and some tough federal reviewers to back this up) and then possibly to provide some nearby off-site mitigation (an alternative route on nearby streets, for example) would be huge because it would apply to almost any project that would matter.

But as always, the devil is in the details. Only time will tell if this is serious. But I'd rather have the feds moving in this direction than in the opposite direction, which has been their approach in the past.

-Ray

[rugbysecondrow]

But I'd rather have the feds moving in this direction than in the opposite direction, which has been their approach in the past.

-Ray

Agreed.