Bikes up, trucks down

File this under Hope-y Change-y 1 (or whatever the hell S. Palin is saying these days):

From: John H.
Subject: Maybe Of Interest?

huffingtonpost.com/bicycle-policy-ray-lahood.

Why does one bit of good news for bicyclists evoke so much hate?

I’m going to the Moab Gran Fondo, May 1 then heading back to MI shortly thereafter until early Nov. I’ll miss the 12%+ climbs in PV.

I’ve heard good things about that Gran Fondo. Have a good time out there.

About that article:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a weekend bicyclist, might consider keeping his head down and his helmet on. A backlash is brewing over his new bicycling policy.

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. The former Republican congressman quietly announced the “sea change” in transportation policy last month.

“This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he wrote in his government blog.

Read the rest: huffingtonpost.com/bicycle-policy-ray-lahood.

That is just a breath of fresh air, isn’t it?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

About big jonny

The man, the legend. The guy who started it all back in the Year of Our Lord Beer, 2000, with a couple of pages worth of idiotic ranting hardcoded on some random porn site that would host anything you uploaded, a book called HTML for Dummies (which was completely appropriate), a bad attitude (which hasn’t much changed), and a Dell desktop running Win95 with 64 mgs of ram and a six gig hard drive. Those were the days. Then he went to law school. Go figure. Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

12 thoughts on “Bikes up, trucks down

  1. Jonny, I didn’t see Palin mentioned in the article. Is there another link?

  2. And Lahood is a friggin’ moonbat. Love the guy, but he’s moonbat.

    People who say that cyclists don’t help pay for roads are HUGE FUCKING MORONS.

    And Mr. Trucking Industry? Truckers don’t pay for their gas, either— the end user does. Moron.

    Yeesh.

  3. I don’t understand this at all. Wouldn’t the trucking industry benefit from less passenger car congestion in urban areas? Maybe they just like sitting in traffic jams.

  4. I read the NPR stuff, Jonny, and I’m damned if I see what it has to do with the topic. Maybe I’m just a bit thick.

    art, the trucking industry doesn’t “get” bikes. They probably never will. Still, if you’ve got it, a truck brought it. Anything we do to make it more cumbersome (expensive) for the trucking industry affects us all in the end.

    And Secretary LaHood, I appreciate the thought, but don’t do me any favors. We’ve already got all the bike lanes we’ll ever need. They’re called public streets, and many of them were in place and paved long before the horseless carriage came into vogue. What you might do, if’n you’ve a mind, is to come down hard on those who would deny us access to the streets, which afterall belong to the people.

  5. “Anything we do to make it more cumbersome (expensive) for the trucking industry affects us all in the end.”

    @Joe— not necessarily. High transportation (trucking) costs will drive some markets to decentralize, so that goods don’t need to ship as far. It will also disfavor fuel-intensive modes of freight (air, truck) for more fuel-efficient modes (rail, water).

    There are some folks (a bit starry-eyed, in my opinion) who think that high petroleum costs will favor on-shore manufacturing at the expense of the Chinese enough to spawn a revival in American manufacturing.

    The U.S. trucking industry has had a free ride ever since Eisenhower initiated the interstate freeway system. This has come at the expense of rail. I follow an interesting company called GATX who own a vast fleet of rail rolling stock, mainly hoppers and tanks. When gas prices are low, they make more money scrapping cars for steel than leasing them for use. At some point, that just doesn’t make sense.

  6. Mikey, my brother is a longhaul trucker. Talk to him about the free ride sometime, why don’t you. And the cost of shipping NECESSARILY is passed on to the consumer. That’s how the real world works. But you think it’s expensive now? The confiscatory cost of doing business will seem like chump change after cap and trade and the value added tax.

  7. What I’ve never understood is why taking individuals out of cars and on to bicycles (or into buses, trains, etc.) isn’t perceived as a benefit to those that remain on roadway, now less crowded as a result.

    Suppose you have 100 people who generally drive through some fictional town each morning on their way to work. Say 15% carpool while the remaining 85% drive solo. Take 10, 20 or 30 of those people out of cars; there are less cars on the road. Less traffic. Quicker commute. Fewer accidents. Less wear and tear on the road surface.

    It is a worthwhile goal. And one we should be pursuing.

  8. “Suppose you have 100 people who generally drive through some fictional town each morning on their way to work. Say 15% carpool while the remaining 85% drive solo.”

    Jonny— doesn’t take nearly that much. In the “economic downturn” of 2008, The WA DOT measured a 2-3% drop in freeway rush hour trips, which was enough to significantly benefit travel times all over Pugetropolis. I understand that similar results were shown in other major metropolitan areas.

    Build more lanes? No.

  9. I don’t quite understand why making more provisions for cyclists is detrimental to the truckers in America. If anything, it would benefit them in the long run, since fuel would be less in demand and hence cheaper.

    Great that America is coming round to the idea though! Hopefully it’ll persuade a lot more people to get cycling!