Bikes
Feb 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286
A few percent here or there, increase or decrease is not going to have a major effect one way or the other. But for the O, it's epic journalism.
PBOT has never (at least, not since Sam's leadership of PBOT) prioritized freight; and yet, that prioritization is desperately needed right now far more than prioritizing bike projects (and bike projects also has a highly questionable return on investment).
Furthermore, Sunday Parkways are a great idea, but government should not be in that line of business. The private sector needs to take them over completely and they need to be cut from the city budget entirely.
So actually, Sara, I would say your post is no more or less misleading than the O's article. It's about perspective.
SO WHAT'S REALLY SUBJECTIVE IS THEIR HEADLINE, AND YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING REGARDING PBOT'S BUDGET PRIORITIES OR THIS CONTROVERSY GENERALLY. IT IS INDEED ABOUT PERSPECTIVE. THE OREGONIAN'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THEY'LL SELL MORE ADS AND GET MORE PAGE VIEWS IF THEY STOKE UP FALSE CHOICES AND CREATE UNNECESSARY CONTROVERSY.
Are you suggesting that The Mercury doesn't do the same thing?
Sped, I think that bike money is mostly for building stuff like speed bumps, curb extensions and road blocks that reduce auto traffic on the bike boulevards, redirecting non-local auto trips toward the larger arterials.
Sarah, the O's piece says reduced street paving would be "about $4 million," though it's not clear from what baseline. You say the reduced street paving would be $1 million from a $9.5 million baseline. What's the discrepancy?
Those interested in saying "but bikes are neat so I'm going to ignore every subject that makes me uncomfortable" should just keep reading Sarah Mirk.
@ Oregometry: Since your posts read like they were written by a chimp addled with Tourette's, it was really hard to understand you. But I think I should say that I'm not looking at the costs of bike items in the article. I'm looking at the cost of bike items in the BUDGET. Look it up.
And anyway, I'm referring to the FTE breakdown. Which places bikes at 11% and freight at 9%. So...yeah.
@9: Oregometry makes a lot more sense than you. If "it's all subjective" and "all about perspective" as you say, then why should anyone care about what you're saying about what desperately needs to be prioritized? You point to a 2% difference in FTE and say "So...yeah." Uh, what?
Care to address the fact that all of those items add up to less than 1% of the budget? Or the fact that all of the bike-related spending is less than 5% of the budget, while bike commuters represent 5 to 10% of the traffic, depending on the season? Or do you just ignore facts that don't fit your ideology?
That isn't the issue. The issue is that piece of crap article over at the Oregonian. We are pointing out that it is 1% of the budget, because the article states that those items are a "priority". In what world is 1% of any budget considered a priority?
PBOT's priorities: the vast majority of funding goes to paving roads due to damage induced by cars. The streetcar is a big chunk, along with other capital projects. Bikes are well under 10%.
The bigger issue should be Tom Miller's quote at the end. That tells you much more about PBOT than any budget numbers ever could.
freight gets to/from state/fed roads via city streets. that's why the freighters in Pdx were supportive of the Bike Plan: it was drafted in parallel with a freight plan that benefited them (for one thing, to keep freight & bike traffic separate, a vital safety issue that has cost bicyclists their lives). gross measurements like FTE tend to tell us almost nothing. it that's what you are saying (hard to tell with the yellinging & odd sentence structure), then i agree. but i also agree with Sarah & the Mayor: at this point, i have more faith in them than The O. by far.
5% annually is nothing. Heck, I don't even have a job, so 5% would be a lot for me. I have a car, pay the gas tax when I fill up and when I had a job I paid taxes. Oh, before you bash me for not having a job, I'm not on unemployment, and I was a teacher that was laid off due to budget cuts. What pisses me off about the O article is it labels bikes as the issue, when cars, trucks, etc. are what cause 99% of the road damage. Studs probably cost this state tens of millions every year, yet we use them for months when we never need them but once or twice in the valley.
I just get tired of hearing people say I don't pay taxes when I ride my bike, but own a car and pay those 'taxes' that they speak of. Lets talk about all the waste that the city and state have, but instead we are going to war over 600million over 20 years, when we as Oregon tax payers have spent millions on the new I5 bridge that is a complete waste of money. Someone is robbing the public blind and its not bikes, its the morons that run the show. We can all share the road can't we?