While the Democratic takeover of Congress this election will undoubtedly alter the country's political path on major policy questions like Iraq, it could also benefit a vocal community closer to home: bicyclists.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who's worked to export Portland's "livability" nationwide, won't be pedaling uphill next year when he's pitching his bike-friendly agenda to a House controlled for the first time in his decadelong tenure by fellow Democrats.
Blumenauer first sponsored the Bike Commuter Act in 2001. It gives employers the option of offering employees a non-taxable cash incentive for cycling to work.
As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Portland lawmaker thinks the act could pass in 2007 after long being ignored by a Republican Congress.
"I have high hopes for the Bike Commuter Act and other pro-cycling legislation to receive favorable treatment in the next Congress," says Blumenauer, co-founder of the bipartisan Congressional Bicycle Caucus, whose 164 members include the entire Oregon House delegation and presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's chairman-to-be, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), is another co-founder of the bike caucus sympathetic to cyclists. In a speech to the 2005 National Bike Summit in Washington, D.C., Oberstar said we "have the chance to change the habits of an entire generation" with more focus on bicycling.
"We're very optimistic about having Jim Oberstar as chair,'' says Evan Manvel, executive director of the local Bicycle Transportation Alliance.
About 3 to 4 percent of Portlanders commute on bicycles, according to Manvel, which ranks the city first nationally in the category of large cities.
Besides Blumenauer, the transportation and infrastructure committee also is slated to include Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a cycling fan who could become chairman of the pivotal Highway and Transit Subcommittee.
.nar.jpg)
I would support a new national bicycle trail, over 3,000 miles west to east, completely grade separated from roadways (well, perhaps a few rural roads coulc cross it). What a great way to promote long-distance bicycle vacations, tourism, and economic development (hostels and bicycle hotels and eateries along the route).
How about it, Earl?
http://urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com/
While you are dreaming big, how about dreaming up a way to pay for your 3K mile hallucination.
I would support a new 20% tax on all bicycle related equipment. Sportsmen have taxed themselves for years to finance conservation efforts. I know the bicycle community would want to be as responsible, correct?
I would support registration and licensing of all bicycle riders over the age of 16. It works for motor vehicles operated on public roads. The ability to enforce the rules of the road is a goal for us all, right?
I would support the spaying and neutering of all urban planners. Before we are overrun with feral urban planners and their planned offspring, it makes sense to control vermin before they become a public health issue, surely you agree?
BTW, I do love hearing that Earl the Pearl's claim to new power and influence is the ability to get more bicycle-friendly legislation passed.
What a powerhouse.
What an influential legislator.
What a lightweight maroon.
I think its great that some people elect to use a bike to get around. I also think its great that them using a bike helps the environment. Good, good, good. But, as the article points out, only 3-4% of the Portland population commutes using bicycles. And even that statistic doesn't describe whether the bicycle is used for commuting everyday, or only once a week. Or once a month. All that aside, I dont feel comfortable commiting even more resources than Portland does already to the 3-4% that decide to bike around.
Now, if the police would start ticketing reckless, and law-breaking bicyclists a bit more often, and putting the collected funds toward these bicycle projects, the 3-4% of bike commuters would then be funded by those that would attempt to give them a bad name. And I think that the Pro and Anti-bike community would both be fine with that!
1) Bicycle commuters are a small but vocal minority. Workers who commute to their jobs on bicycles are not recreational riders. Workers must cope with rush-hour traffic and cannot choose a different time of day to ride.
2) Bicycle lanes are meant to protect women and children from being rear-ended by cars.
3) "Substandard width lane" means the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to share at the same time. Often the road does not need a marked bicycle lane, rather; the existing traffic lane should be widened to 14 feet plus road shoulder, or brought up to whatever new standard is dictated.
4) Aggressive drivers scare the heck out of bicyclists are leave them shaken. Only 1% of drivers are trying to run the bicyclist over, but the taxpayer has to fund the bicycle lane to protect them. If the 1% of drivers who are aggressive were gone, there would be no need for speed-bumps, concrete planters, bollards, concrete dividers, etc, which divide bicycle lanes from the roadway.
5) Bicycles can be registered simply by submitting the serial numbers to one's homeowners insurance carrier. This saves a lot of red-tape, the Department of Motor Vehicles doesn't have to get involved. Adding your bicycle and your children's bicycles to the homeowners policy helps insurance agents investigate accidents where a car hits your bike (or your child), which saves the Police Officer's time.
Today bicycles are unlicensed vehicles operating without insurance. I had over $2000 damage done to my car when a bicyclist scraped a gouge in the metal as he passed too close. No license number to report and no requirement that the pedal-pusher have insurance to cover. The police suggested I chase him down and sue him.
And then this stupid idea -- "national bicycle trail, over 3,000 miles What a great way to promote long-distance bicycle vacations, tourism, and economic development". --- There can't be a cheaper bunch to tourists than bike travelers - there isn't any benefit to drawing them, they'll cost more than they ever will return.
Keep the toys at home. Bicycles are not part of a rational transportation mix for America.