Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?

damyth said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of course.

vey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of course.

Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

"george" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

vey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
course.

Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

damyth said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

What do you expect from a Bush appointee? She's a Republican.

Greens said:

"george" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

vey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
course.

Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

I think it was that Reagan was once again confusing reality with
something that was in a movie. He once saw a polluting tree in a film
and thought it was real.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:01:56 -0700, SMS <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Greens said:

"george" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

vey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
> course.
Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

I think it was that Reagan was once again confusing reality with
something that was in a movie. He once saw a polluting tree in a film
and thought it was real.

Read it.
http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_trees.html

Fritz said:

Read it.
http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_trees.html

"For example, biogenics are estimated to account for 22 percent of all
VOCs emitted in the woody Houston-Galveston area, but only 12 percent in
the arid El Paso area."

Geez, so *that's* why Houston stinks so much more than El Paso. That's
one of life's mysteries solved.

"damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

Her exact comments:
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing
lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being
spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

and later...

GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?

MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of
the current spending that is going to projects that really are not
transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being
spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some is being
spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.

In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes back
to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER. I'd
love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.

"Jim Flom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:GtcHi.51829$bO6.42298@edtnps89...

Quoted message said:

"damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

Her exact comments:
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails,
repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that
money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

and later...

GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?

MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of
the current spending that is going to projects that really are not
transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is
being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some
is being spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.

In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes
back to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER.
I'd love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad
Ifill didn't pick up on it.

Let's face it. We cyclists are selfish vermin stealing the very breath out
of motor's mouths.

We should be ashamed.

Jim Flom wrote:
I'd

Quoted message said:

love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.

$395 million.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm

1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm

Jim Flom said:

damyth said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

Her exact comments:
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing
lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being
spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

and later...

GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?

MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of
the current spending that is going to projects that really are not
transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being
spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some is being
spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.

In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes back
to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER. I'd
love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.

You know, I'd be happy to give up tax support for bike-only paths
(I've never actually seen one, only multi-use paths) in return for
bike lanes and sidewalks on what are now limited-access freeways.

Deal?

Chalo

Quoted message said:

"george" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

vey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
course.

Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

Greens said:

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

As with the contribution of forests to acid rain, the truth got lost in
a snappy headline. Twice.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

"george" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

vey <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
> Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
> course.
Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same
folks that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

Greens said:

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused
pollution. Now it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

As with the contribution of forests to acid rain, the truth got lost in
a snappy headline. Twice.

Why don't you read the Salon article and avoid the headline. Then you
can judge for yourself whether the "truth" has gotten lost. Don't
overlook my link to the amount of Federal money being spent on the oft
mentioned trails. Here, I'll post it again:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm

vey said:

Jim Flom wrote:
I'd

Quoted message said:

love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.

$395 million.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm

1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm

Thank goodness we have no problem spending $2billion *PER WEEK* in
Iraq!

--

John ([email hidden])

John Thompson said:

vey said:

Jim Flom wrote:
I'd

Quoted message said:

love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.

$395 million.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm

1 billion of budgeted road money was return last year by the states
because they couldn't spend it fast enough.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rescissions/pl110_5/summary.htm

Thank goodness we have no problem spending $2billion *PER WEEK* in
Iraq!

Oh, no! The "I" word. Quickest way to sidetrack a decent discussion. How
does it go? "We are the richest nation on earth. It is ridiculous to say
we can't afford this. It isn't even costing 2% of our GNP."

damyth said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

See
"http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1189934533174290.xml&coll=3"

Even in Alabama they want more bike paths, and even favored expanding
the helmet law to adults.

in rec.bicycles.tech damyth said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

I think that the Secretary would be justified in claiming that she has
been misquoted. Go and read the transcript of her actual statements
at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html

You'll have to choose your phrases pretty carefully to obtain that
which Mieszkowski claims she said. "Bike paths are not
transportation," (see internal headline) is not a quote and one must
concatenate phrases from answers to several interview questions to get
it. The alleged statement would be inconsistent with other clear and
direct quotes by the Secretary of Transportation; for example:

"Bicyclists are an integral part of our nation's transportation system
and we all need to work together to develop a better, more balanced
transportation system that provides facilities and programs for
bicyclists on a routine basis." (2002)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/re020306.htm

Now, Peters is a politician (or serves one), thus one must take what
she says with a large grain of salt. OTOH, Mieszkowski is a
journalist looking for a headline and I think she crossed the line of
journalistic honesty on this one... or certainly came damn close!

Jones

!Jones said:

in rec.bicycles.tech damyth said:

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

I think that the Secretary would be justified in claiming that she has
been misquoted. Go and read the transcript of her actual statements
at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html

You'll have to choose your phrases pretty carefully to obtain that
which Mieszkowski claims she said. "Bike paths are not
transportation," (see internal headline) is not a quote and one must
concatenate phrases from answers to several interview questions to get
it. The alleged statement would be inconsistent with other clear and
direct quotes by the Secretary of Transportation; for example:

"Bicyclists are an integral part of our nation's transportation system
and we all need to work together to develop a better, more balanced
transportation system that provides facilities and programs for
bicyclists on a routine basis." (2002)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/re020306.htm

Now, Peters is a politician (or serves one), thus one must take what
she says with a large grain of salt. OTOH, Mieszkowski is a
journalist looking for a headline and I think she crossed the line of
journalistic honesty on this one... or certainly came damn close!

So here's an unedited excerpt (no changes on my part) from the newshour
transcript that you cite:

-----------------------------
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails,
repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that
money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.
------------------------------

My evaluation: "bike paths" are one "kind of thing[]" that doesn't
qualify as "infrastructure," according to Secretary Peters, those
"things" being /contrasted/ with "infrastructure" in the last quoted
sentence.

OK, so she doesn't say "Bike paths are not transportation", just that,
in almost so many words, "Bike paths aren't [transportation]
infrastructure."

Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation
but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?

Mark "grading too many frosh essays" J.
who, by the way, has seen relatively few bike paths he likes,
but has commuted by bike almost exclusively for 28 years.

in rec.bicycles.tech Mark said:

So here's an unedited excerpt (no changes on my part) from the newshour
transcript that you cite:

Well, I would suggest that taking an excerpt is, in fact, editing;
however, I suppose that one could have interpreted the secretary's
comment as the author of the article under discussion did. My
position was that, if one were to read the whole transcript, the
careful reader would, in my opinion, have found that her thesis was
quite different from that presented by Mieszkowski. I believe that I
cited other statements by the secretary in support of a different
interpretation.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that Peters' view is that bicycles are important for
transportation, but /not important enough/ to make corresponding
construction qualify as infrastructure? Or is it that bicycles are
important for transportation, and they don't /need/ any infrastructure?
Or how about a suitable-for-RBT-flame-wars "Cycling is transportation
but cycling on bike paths /isn't/"? Am I getting close to what you meant?

Actually, what I wrote is exactly what I meant. (Did you, by any
chance, read my post?) I usually try to avoid stating another
person's thesis, choosing instead to allow that person to do so. I
suggest that we email the Department of Transportation at
[email hidden] and let the secretary (or her representative)
clarify her position. IMO, that approach will probably produce better
information than presenting me with a false dilemma, don't you think?

Jones