For the Patron Saints Name of Frick.
Honest to god, a god damned "bike coordinator."
Boys, are you paying attention? What did Uncle Cappy tell you about owning property in major metro areas?
That's right, DON'T! You rent and spend your youth there, you do NOT invest or live your productive lives there.
My town, an upscale suburb of Philadelphia, recently announced a plan for creating an extensive network of commuter bikeways that includes converting a narrow sidewalk on our modest residential street into an to 8-10 foot wide trail. This would likely involve taking, presumably through eminent domain, a substantial part of a couple dozen front yards, and would dramatically alter the nature our street. After reading this article, I suspect this is part of a nationwide movement of urban planner types, and a second, complementary phase to the already well underway and mostly insane (and sometimes downright dangerous) "traffic calming" projects that have taken place around the country. I completely agree with you about not owning properties in major metro areas.
ReplyDeleteYet another female make-work job.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to include a pic:
ReplyDeletehttp://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_139147990276022.jpg
"Kelley Yemen, 33, formerly with New York City’s Department of Transportation, will step into the position, which pays a salary of $68,000, on Feb. 10."
Always nice to know someone who doesn't exercise much is going to take an -ahem- active role in handling something exercise related. Nice salary too. Gotta love government.
$68,000. I make $45k as a math teacher with nine years of experience, after twenty years of actual experience as an engineer and manager. What B.S. experience does she have in doing anything useful at all?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go on a limb here. I'm writing this to see counter-arguments because counter-arguments I seen in the past not from this forum has not been quite satisfactory.
ReplyDeleteMy background is I have ride a bike a lot. Not as much these days as my commute needs a car. But I haven't forgotten the days I got around by bike.
I view things utilitarian. For transportation, that means taking the one with the best pros and least cons. Thus in the city, the bike found to be extremely useful as it took the overall least time. It may not be able to go as fast as a car, but factoring traffic and parking, a bike cuts that right out. So in short urban distances, I used my bike.
But I notice in discussions that it doesn't quite that line. People may use arguments citing cost, utility, popularity, safety, or etc. But I always notice the people arguing in for-or-against can be squarely lined by political background. The right leaning people always voice skepticism to disapproval. The left is always positive.
So in my experiences and assessments. I actually like bikes. For usefulness as stated above. And I take no qualm to adding lanes or even more expensive infrastructure like tracks and trails as long it is built in highly utilized areas.
In my city, we had a bike coordinator too (I'm not sure we have anymore after the previous person left). And I have to admit, I think the person was useful. Identified and make a large expansion of bike lanes with the start of some cycle tracks in area really highly used by bikes and fixed up trails. Similar to the traffic engineer, but dealing assessing and building with cyclist in mind than drivers. I saw results in my city, and have a hard time arguing against that without viewing either no one should use bikes or also view traffic engineers as being almost as valueless. This doesn't mean this woman would be productive. But, if a bike coordinator does her job, the only reason why I would disapprove if I view bikes in the same hostile light many conservative type and apparently here. But I don't assess the same conclusion as those there. And I would to hear the reasons, why?
Sure, not everyone agree on everything, but I don't think this is one of those things where there can be multiple right answers based on circumstances. Not as long I see disapproval and approval go along more strongly along political lines than if ____ street bike lane needed based on the street having a lot cyclist using it.
"bike lane needed based on the street having a lot cyclist using it"
ReplyDeleteThat's not how it's really done. Bike lanes are built because they want to spend money on their pet cause and displace cars. If you were building bike lanes based on need and cost effectiveness you'd never build them.
Wow a fat chick as bike co-coordinator. Wrong choice for a phony job. The job could easily be done by volunteer cyclists. Bet she's connected to some city big wig.
ReplyDeleteI live in town just outside of Los Angeles where bike lanes are all over the place. And these are expensive ones with dedicated lanes and 10 + miles of nice wooden fencing.
They are a complete waste if bike traffic is a measurement. What they are in reality is a make works project for city workers and a PR thing for the city big wigs.
There are simply not enough bikers out there. Sure you get the occasional biker, but they are rarer than a Prius driving snob.
That's not how it's really done. Bike lanes are built because they want to spend money on their pet cause and displace cars. If you were building bike lanes based on need and cost effectiveness you'd never build them.
ReplyDeleteThat's sound more of your extrapolation based on view of liberals (extrapolating liking bikes and hating cars).
I live in town just outside of Los Angeles where bike lanes are all over the place. And these are expensive ones with dedicated lanes and 10 + miles of nice wooden fencing.
They are a complete waste if bike traffic is a measurement.
Since both last sentence is "bikes lane are a waste if based on usage". I have to first respond that "country" is a major point here. In the northeast, I see plenty of bikes, not Copenhagen or China in the 1980's, but enough to say cost is justified. I should also point out that bike lanes are not exactly expensive, some places it just mean moving the fog line. To be fair, I do speak in certain bikes lanes. Some streets doesn't attract much bikes, but some seem to have quite a number. Basically it is based on location with key locations being near schools, bridges/arterial streets, and some highly common street used to commute. Other places may not really justify costs, though I would point out 4 lines of paint tend to not be that expensive - so the bar to justification is not that high.
And to be fair again, your example sounds like it is more than lines of paint versus where I'm from. So perhaps LA is different from my region (which is also weird come to think about it - northeast don't have the advantage of mild winters). From personal experience, I don't remember seeing a lot of bikes at all in LA. I also visited SF where I was more surprised at the lack of bikes given its liberal reputation. But I also learn how crazy their hills are too. So I surmised it was that.
That's sound more of your extrapolation based on view of liberals (extrapolating liking bikes and hating cars).
ReplyDeleteIs it possible she isn't a True Believer? Yes, but that's not the way to bet. A True Believer is the sort of person this kind of job attracts.