Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

I'd like to underscore Chris Smith's point about the relative cost effectiveness of bicycle infrastructure, even with out accounting for carbon emissions. The ratio of # of humans transported to dollars spent is an order of magnitude higher than for any other kind of transportation investment.

Of course cycling doesn't work for everyone; no one is suggesting investing in bike infrastructure in place of transit investments that can serve everyone, including the elderly and people with disabilities.

But, a large proportion of our trips *are* short trips. And you'd be suprised, once you start using a bike to get around, how many trips you don't really need a car for. All you need is some good rain gear and fenders, and our days of "liquid sunshine" become downright pleasurable to ride in. Combine a bike with transit, and you can get anywhere in the region.

It has already come up in this comment thread - the number one thing holding people back choosing bikes for those short trips around the neighborhood, or to and from transit stops, is the perception and reality of unsafe riding conditions.

Why are our roads unsafe for bikes? Because they were built to move cars. 

I don't think it is productive to cast this as a culture war. Even those of us who bike commute every day in all kinds of weather are likely to own cars. This is just about how can we all practically get around an urban environment, while doing something about health and climate change.

The easier we can make it for people who can to take their bikes when appropriate, the less traffic there will be for everyone. And if we are going to get serious about carbon emissions, what's not to like about getting around with pretty much zero emissions?

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

A question for the ODOT representative:

What is on your list in terms of bicycle & pedestrian projects? Many of the major gaps in the bike lane network in the metro area are on ODOT roads - e.g. the Barbur bridges where bikes must merge into the lane, or the TV Hwy bike lane that ends suddenly on SE 10th in Hillsboro. Likewise, ODOT roads in urbanized areas tend to be unfriendly places for pedestrians since they were designed to facilitate moving auto traffic through the cities.

I know that someone at ODOT must be thinking about this, but are there any initiatives related to the stimulus package?

Thanks!

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Hi-

I think one piece of this that's been missing here is the impact of commodity crop subsidies on the rural poor in the developing world. In Haiti, in Mexico, in Africa, below-cost US commodities drive poor farmers out of business, resulting in rural villages that are ghost towns, and countries that are not self sufficient in terms of food.

For Americans who may not care about this, consider that the economic crisis of the Mexican and Central American countryside is one of major sources of the desparation of people willing to risk their lives to immigrate to the US.

posted 4 years ago
view in context