The case for physically separated bike lanes

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Dennis P. Harris) said:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I think in certain places bike lanes can be useful.
Especially where steep upgrades slow a rider down
on an otherwise fast paced road.

Cars are often segregated from one another -- that's
what left turn bays etc are all about.

I'm certainly against just slap-dashing bike lanes
all over the place, but I'm not going to be idealogically
opposed to them. They're an option I'd like to keep
open, but used discriminately and intelligently.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car
drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars
to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car
drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars
to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.

Peter (and I) are pragmatists on this issue. I'm fortunate to live
where there are SIX foot (2m), non-parking bike lanes on many of the
major roads, and they work. Period. Peter's unfortunate enough to
have suffered the consequence of not having such facilities at a
particular point in time.

To others though, it's become a virtual penis envy campaign where
their perceived minority status has become the bigger issue. I'm at a
loss as to how else anyone could look at the Maricopa County bike lane
facilities and pronounce them "not as good as sharing 45mph lanes with
cars".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit.

Maybe, maybe not. A bike lane does not guarantee not getting hit from
behind.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf

I wrote the report, having examined 3000 collisions.

Also, riding in a bike lane or shoulder makes other collision mechanisms
more likely.

Moving a bicycle outwards and away

Quoted message said:

from traffic is a GOOD thing.

Not necessarily true.

I think that bike lanes are appropriate on roads where you want to
encourage faster and more motor traffic, and there are few/no cross
traffic junctions. In other words, controlled access freeways.

Bike lanes are little more than named shoulders. Shoulders are intended
to prevent run-off-road collisons and provide a buffer from roadside
elements. That are not intended for vehicular travel. They are placed on
roads intended to facilitate faster motoring and enable motorists to be
automatons.

A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane
does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights.
A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide
lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where
"accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a
bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and
this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are
not really operationally benefical to bicyclists.

Wayne

Matt O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

http://nyc.theoildrum.com/node/2416

Note thatwww.theoildrum.comhas widespread readership, and this post made
it to the first couple of pages on Digg today.

Matt O.

Hi there.

I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is
necessarily a good idea.

I lived in Toronto, Ontario Canada where some of the so called bike
paths had the *WEST* bound bicycle traffic separated from the *EAST*
bound motor vehicle traffic by only a painted line. I never rode that
path when travelling west because I preferred the west bound road
where the closing speeds were much less. I saw the result where a west
bound cyclist on the path swerved into an east bound vehicle -- not
pretty at all.

Many (not all) people who ride and advocate bike paths are not very
skilled riders. Therefore it is very important that when designing
bike paths or bike lanes people of low riding (i.e. children) skills
be kept in mind.

To me some so called bicycle paths are dangerous in their design. A
path like the ones here in town that end suddenly just feet from a
major intersection is a good example of a dangerous design.

Also in order to ride more than a few feet on some of the litter
strewn bike paths I have seen one would require armoured tyres in
order not to get a puncture. Recycling trucks that have picked up
glass bottles, jars etcetera often leave a nice trail of crushed glass
along the bike path as they pull out.

Cheers from Peter

"Sir Ridesalot" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I do not think that segregating cyclists from the motoring lanes is
necessarily a good idea.

I think physically separated lanes make sense if you are investing in a large
network of such lanes (as some European and Asian countries are doing). It
is much less useful if your road network still requires bicyclists to "share
the road" for most of their mileage.

Sir Ridesalot said:

I lived in Toronto, Ontario Canada where some of the so called bike
paths had the *WEST* bound bicycle traffic separated from the *EAST*
bound motor vehicle traffic by only a painted line. I never rode that
path when travelling west because I preferred the west bound road
where the closing speeds were much less. I saw the result where a west
bound cyclist on the path swerved into an east bound vehicle -- not
pretty at all.

Quoted message said:

To me some so called bicycle paths are dangerous in their design. A
path like the ones here in town that end suddenly just feet from a
major intersection is a good example of a dangerous design.

I live in Toronto currently, and know of no two-way on-street bike
lanes like that. (I'm not saying we don't have any bad ones.) Where
was/is this?

As to the sudden ending ones (College Street comes to mind), they're
actually fairly well signed with warnings about the impending end of
the lane - though the signs tend to be much higher than a cyclist's
line of sight. The dashed line to the left of the lane is a backup
warning, however.

Wayne Pein said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

O'Toole <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
>touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

Quoted message said:

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

Quoted message said:

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit.

Maybe, maybe not. A bike lane does not guarantee not getting hit from
behind.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/16b.pdf

I wrote the report, having examined 3000 collisions.

Also, riding in a bike lane or shoulder makes other collision mechanisms
more likely.

Moving a bicycle outwards and away

Quoted message said:

from traffic is a GOOD thing.

Not necessarily true.

I think that bike lanes are appropriate on roads where you want to
encourage faster and more motor traffic, and there are few/no cross
traffic junctions. In other words, controlled access freeways.

Bike lanes are little more than named shoulders. Shoulders are intended
to prevent run-off-road collisons and provide a buffer from roadside
elements. That are not intended for vehicular travel. They are placed on
roads intended to facilitate faster motoring and enable motorists to be
automatons.

A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane
does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights.
A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide
lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where
"accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a
bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and
this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are
not really operationally benefical to bicyclists.

Wayne

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could
have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty
simple.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could
have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty
simple.

If she had been three feet further to your left she would not have hit you.

It was her fault, no?

What happened to her?

Was what happened to her (if anything) sufficient to have a discouraging
effect on motorists running down cyclists?

If not, there is a solution which is simpler, cheaper, and quicker than any
road construction or modification - change the presumption of fault in
motorcar vs. cycle collisions; afetr all, you have a *right* to be there,
motorists do not...

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor
Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really
follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either
repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic
lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the
U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and
basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at
the current repainting cycle for that roadway.

Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs
and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges
of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I
can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would
have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly
(basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of
concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still
left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of
disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists,
but it never happened.

In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could
narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then
whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of
adding asphalt.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.

From motorists who yell "Get off the road," to decision makers and
planners who want to do something, anything "for" bicyclists, to
bicyclist segregationists themselves, there is no shortage of people who
want to micromanage/regulate bicyclists' roadway position. Strange
bedfellows.

If you love, something let it be free.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Physically separated bike lanes are an abomination of an abomination.
However, like separated bike paths, and "normal" bike lanes, physically
separated bike lanes can be useful in very limited applications. The
problem is that zealots do not understand, or care about, their
limitations and downsides, and want them implemented everywhere.

From motorists who yell "Get off the road," to decision makers and
planners who want to do something, anything "for" bicyclists, to
bicyclist segregationists themselves, there is no shortage of people who
want to micromanage/regulate bicyclists' roadway position. Strange
bedfellows.

If you love, something let it be free.

Wayne

That is probably true for most of the country. Here they have made a
token effort by paving some old railroad rights of way, the tops of
levees, and a few odd spots that nobody even go to.
Planning? Maybe, but not good planning.
Haphazard is the best I can rate it.
Bill Baka

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

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Having sat through a few of these conversations at various Motor
Vehicle Administrations and Departments, your comments don't really
follow. The choices that are, in fact, budgetarily neutral are either
repainting traffic lanes and having, as an example, a 10-10-10 traffic
lane with a 4 foot bike lane or a 10-10-14 lane, left to right (in the
U.S) with no lane. That is a low cost choice in either case and
basically a no cost solution to give cyclists more room if it is at
the current repainting cycle for that roadway.

Adding ANY asphalt is a different story. Bike lanes run where curbs
and drains run, where telephone posts are planted and where the edges
of current ROW runs. The money for the asphalt is only one issue - I
can remember a discussion of adding two feet to U.S. 1 which would
have required digging up and moving every single drain assembly
(basically a 8 foot deep by 10 foot long by 4 foot wide piece of
concrete and metal) for two miles in both directions. And that still
left the curbs, sidewalks and telephone posts. And the price of
disrupting businesses. Might have been nice, even for the motorists,
but it never happened.

In most cases, adding bike lanes boiled down to how easily they could
narrow other travel lanes to accomodate the wider curb lane and then
whether or not that last stripe was worthwhile. It wasn't an issue of
adding asphalt.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains
a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are
bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road.
In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is
a 'door zone' so caution is always in order.
Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners
are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health.
That's real world.
Bill Baka

yeah, maybe people should arm wrestle for office positions. Least it is
more balanced that way.

nash said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Looking at the above kind of 'How things work in the real world' explains
a lot. We have bike lanes, but only on one side of the road, so they are
bidirectional, since you can't ride safely on the other side of the road.
In town at least they have a parking lane on both sides, but every car is
a 'door zone' so caution is always in order.
Planners don't have to live in the world they create. Most of the planners
are fat, bald, old men who are more worried about money than health.
That's real world.
Bill Baka

yeah, maybe people should arm wrestle for office positions. Least it is
more balanced that way.

Why not? Get rid of some of the too old to think hanger on types.
Damn politicians never want to retire.
Picture this.....
Bicycle day for the Senate and Congress.
Would Teddy Kennedy make it in or crash in a creek?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Bill Baka

_ said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could
have been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty
simple.

If she had been three feet further to your left she would not have hit you.

she was asleep

Quoted message said:

It was her fault, no?

see above

Quoted message said:

What happened to her?

Careless driving resulting in an injury.

Quoted message said:

Was what happened to her (if anything) sufficient to have a discouraging
effect on motorists running down cyclists?

of course not...she could have only been punished more if she had
killed me.

Quoted message said:

If not, there is a solution which is simpler, cheaper, and quicker than any
road construction or modification - change the presumption of fault in
motorcar vs. cycle collisions; afetr all, you have a *right* to be there,
motorists do not...

see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people
somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over,
some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between
the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Wayne Pein said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A wide lane of 15 or 16 feet accomplishes much/all of what a bike lane
does without segregating bicyclists or reducing their space and rights.
A wide lane is more likely to be free of debris than a bike lane. A wide
lane is more appropriate on "normal" non-freeway type roads where
"accommodating" bicyclists is useful. Really though, a wide lane or a
bike lane is first a way to make it easier for motorists to pass, and
this makes some bicyclists feel more comfortable and safe, but they are
not really operationally benefical to bicyclists.

Well they're operationally beneficial to other users in the presence of
bicyclists.

Quoted message said:

Maybe, maybe not. Let's look at the 'long pole in the tent', when it
comes to constructing anything-> MONEY. What is more likely, taking
existing auto lanes and expanding them by 6-8 feet or so to accomodate
the teeny population of bicycles or adding 3 feet of asphalt to an
existing road, add some paint, and move bicycles physically over to be
farther away from a car that's traveling twice the bicycles speed?

Rights are nice to talk about at town hall meetings but if I could have
been 3 feet over to the right she would NOT have hit me, pretty simple.

The right that matters here is often right of way, as in land to build a
wider road, which often isn't available, and if it is, is very expensive.

Slapping 3' of asphalt on a shoulder doesn't work, even though it's done
frequently. It doesn't bear the weight of a motor vehicle, and will
quickly become broken up, eroded, etc., besides not being smooth enough
to ride comfortably on in the first place.

Right now in VA we're adding proper roadbed-supported shoulder during
maintenance repaving projects. It costs $400k per mile. We could build
miles and miles of multi-use path for that, especially if there's already
good roadbed, as with an old rail line.

Matt O.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

see above...I agree that a wider road is key, I just think people
somewhat observe lines. If you assume they KNOW how far to move over,
some cyclists will still get nailed. If they know to just stay between
the lines, and us over to the side, I think less accidents.

You fail to recognize that by "us" staying over to the side in a narrow
defined space, turning and merging type collisions are increased. You
also discount our reduced maneuvering space, loss of rights, and the
greater liklihood of debris. This paper describes in detail the problems
bicyclists face by riding near the side:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/High_Speed.pdf
It's a 1.5 mb file.

Designing an infrastructure with shoulders and other "safe crashing"
features more readily enables motorists to go "asleep:" at the worst
actually asleep, at the least in a brain dead fog.

Wayne

On Apr 1, 4:53 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Apr 1, 12:11 am, [email hidden] (Dennis P. Harris)

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:43:25 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Matt

Quoted message said:

O'Toole said:

I have no comment on this yet, but maybe you do. It's an 8 minute video
touting the advantages of physically separated bike lanes:

Quoted message said:

segregation is second class facilities for cyclists. bikes
belong on the road, period. cagers need to get used to it.

I'll mention that to the lady that hit me from behind..no wait, i was
unconscious for 15 minutes.....

Only 15 minutes? You were lucky. And you, at least, know who hit
you. Not sure how long I was out; after I was found, response was
called, I was worked on at the scene, transported to the hospital,
etc. etc. I finally regained consciousness while being scanned for
possible brain damage. What/who hit me has never been identified.

Quoted message said:

It is not second class to acknowledge that bicycles, altho having a
'right' to be on a road, are much clower and it would be so much safer
if all paved roads had a bicycle friendly 3 foot or so shoulder/lane,
whateveryawanttacallit. If there had been one on that road 4 years
ago, i would not have been hit. Moving a bicycle outwards and away
from traffic is a GOOD thing. By stamping one's foot and telling car
drivers to 'get used to it' is short sighted. Like us saying to cars
to 'stay off the road on Sundays', when we ride more.

There is a difference between having a wide shoulder and having a
physically segregated lane. Physically segregated lanes are VERY
expensive, probably provide some better protection, but as with most
things some of that protection is an illusion. I can support wider
shoulders; that can be built over time on many roads (not all).
Physically segregated networks will cost many hundreds of billions of
dollars ... for each state. And where will the funding come from?
California estimates that just repairing existing roads to minimal
standards for all users will cost $160B, the cost of catching up after
funding cuts that started in the 70's. A bond measure passed last
year will provide $20B. A $1 increase in the gas tax, if one could
ever pass it, would provide another $20B. Try to argue that the
state should add another $100B+ for segregated bicycle networks and
anyone with any political savvy will laugh uncontrollably. Federal
funding is basically frozen at this time as they try to put back in
controls that allowed the 'Big Dig' fiasco, but I have no doubt that
there is no way that the feds will come up with any sort of real
financing for a proposal like that.

I am on a committee that advises our city council on issues related to
transportation. We have a decent bike network and are always trying
to improve it. But the reality of money continually hits home; we
can get around $250K/year on average for bicycle improvements and that
does not go far. The City Council is quite bike friendly, several of
them ride regularly and some even escort their children to school on
bikes. The $250K is not a pittance thrown to quiet the cyclists, it
is what can be carved out of a tight budget. If fed funds can be un-
frozen we will spend about $6M this year, using federal and county
money to build bridges over two freeways that divide the city both
geographically and culturally. $1M of the cost, more or less, will
come from 'developer mitigation' funds, money the city gets from
developers to help pay for the burden the developments place on they
city infrastructure; I am not sure how much of the mitigation kitty
this will take, as a percentage, but my guess is it is a big chunk. I
see no way we will get money to segregate cyclists. And what money
we do get for striping bike lanes all goes to the faster arterials
and collectors, not quieter residential roads. BTW, we do have a
policy that all re-paving project must include striping of lanes, so
as time progresses we will get much of the city striped.

Money is the 500 lb gorilla in any argument about bicycling
facilities, and so far those advocating for physically segregated
facilities seem to have pie in the sky ideals of where that money will
come from. When we had this discussion locally a couple of months
back, the largest proponents of segregation believed that global
warming concerns would cause the purse strings to loosen and funds to
magically appear for all sorts of alternative transportation
projects. Yes, and the easter bunny will leave a brand new Record
gruppo on my front porch this weekend, too ;-)

- rick