You could always point out that improved roads in the US were originally created for bicycle use:

"Just over a century ago, steamships, canals, railroads, and the telegraph were up and running. They were the technological marvels of the 19th century-- setting the stage for the 20th century. Yet the invention that would spark a revolution in transportation was a simple two-wheeler. The bicycle. Its popularity in the 1880s and 1890s spurred interest in the nation's roads.

On October 3, 1893, General Roy Stone, a Civil War hero and good roads advocate, was appointed Special Agent in charge of the new Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) within the Department of Agriculture. With a budget of $10,000, ORI promoted new rural road development to serve the wagons, coaches, and bicycles on America's dirt roads."

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

When( and if) we, as bicyclists, advocate for improved infrastructure, geared towards our needs, we should be able to demonstrate that bike specific facilities are cost effective. The roads will be built, no matter what. I think that we have a good case to make, as far as paying for the facilities that we use. If each person paid, according to their use, motorists would pay much more, and cyclist ranks would swell, reducing our costs further. But this won't happen, because you know who rules America- the motorists. In a democracy, they could have us riding on the sidewalks, and paying a greater share of their costs on top of the indignity.The point of my statement was that cars are paying their way, because so many of them use a stretch of pavement. It is extraordinarily costly to provide pavement for low density use, so the real message is to recruit more cyclists, so the vehicle-mile pavement costs for cyclists go down. The current vehicle mile cost of bike lanes is astronomical because bicycle traffic is so light. If I am planning a facility to get the most public bang for the buck, I won't put in bike lanes unless there is a lot more bike traffic. You can whine about your environmental virginity, but in this country the real mass transit is automobiles, which account for a huge share of total passenger miles of travel. I am not saying bikes are bad, only that existing facilities are so lightly used that their unit cost makes them luxury items.

.... I am not saying bike lanes are bad, only that existing facilities are so lightly used that their unit cost makes them luxury items.

Very good point and one traffic engineers make repeatedly when forced to deal with 'flavor of the month' proposals like bus lanes, car pool lanes, and their ilk. The best bike lane I have ever seen is a well maintained shoulder. Not only is it for almost exclusive use of cyclists, it is perfectly consistent with the decades old observation that the slower the vehicle, the further to the right it should be.


roughstuff

You could always point out that improved roads in the US were originally created for bicycle use....



So what. The first Roman roads were built for chariots. The first telephone lines carried only voice. Just because their initial use was for one purpose doesn't have much relevance to what their use is now.

To me the key is to insist that roads be for multiple use transportation, accomodating as many forms of vehicle as possible given the limited space and money we have for them.

People forget that production of goods and services is almost irrelevant unless these goods and services are transported, efficiently and cheaply, on a state of the art diverse transportation network or trains, roads, planes, trucks, and yes Virginia maybe bicycles.

Bicycles have a role, but very limited role to play, in our overall need for transport. Why this is so hard to accept among the cycling 'community' (when was the last time YOU had bicycle parts shipped to you by bicycle?) shows only the same sort of pigheadedness that makes SUV drivers think THEY are the rats ass to be kissed.



roughstuff

So what. The first Roman roads were built for chariots. The first telephone lines carried only voice. Just because their initial use was for one purpose doesn't have much relevance to what their use is now.

To me the key is to insist that roads be for multiple use transportation, accomodating as many forms of vehicle as possible given the limited space and money we have for them.

People forget that production of goods and services is almost irrelevant unless these goods and services are transported, efficiently and cheaply, on a state of the art diverse transportation network or trains, roads, planes, trucks, and yes Virginia maybe bicycles.

Bicycles have a role, but very limited role to play, in our overall need for transport. Why this is so hard to accept among the cycling 'community' (when was the last time YOU had bicycle parts shipped to you by bicycle?) shows only the same sort of pigheadedness that makes SUV drivers think THEY are the rats ass to be kissed.


lighten up

lighten up

Thanks! I will...pump up those tires a bit, get out on these cold new england roads (now free of ice!) and do some riding. ;)

roughstuff

Very good point and one traffic engineers make repeatedly when forced to deal with 'flavor of the month' proposals like bus lanes, car pool lanes, and their ilk. The best bike lane I have ever seen is a well maintained shoulder. Not only is it for almost exclusive use of cyclists, it is perfectly consistent with the decades old observation that the slower the vehicle, the further to the right it should be.


roughstuff
Yes, but the quicker the mind the further to the right it will be.