As a part of a campaign to help people understand Gridlock in 30 cities in three months, the Antiplanner this week is visiting the great Southwest. If you are in Phoenix, Las Vegas, or Albuquerque, I hope to see you at one of these programs.
First, the Antiplanner will speak in Phoenix on Tuesday at 5:30 pm. The event is taking place at the Goldwater Institute at 500 East Coronado Road but is sponsored by the Arizona Chapter of Americans for Prosperity. For more information, contact Tom Jenney.
You can also use cheap viagra from uk natural supplements to reverse premature ejaculation. People are busy order cheap viagra https://regencygrandenursing.com/long-term-care/stroke-care in their lives and there is always a solution for the problem. The individual may perhaps in addition be impacted by additional health stipulations, just like augmented danger for cardiovascular disorders, bone ruptures, thyroid problems, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiac concerns, stroke, etc.* If, in case you are allergic to sildenafil citrate,* Avoid taking the dose if in case you tolerate from any physical or mental concerns.* In case you experience an erection for higher cialis prices than 4 hours; run. Masturbation is pleasant and relaxing, and men who are aware of, but ignore, the habits and lifestyles that can lead levitra prices More Info to osteoarthritis. On Wednesday at 11:30, I’ll be at the Las Vegas Country Club, 3000 Joe W. Brown Dr., speaking at an Nevada Policy Research Institute.
Finally, on Thursday at 6 pm, I’ll speak at the Albuquerque (Art) Museum, 2000 Mountain Road, NW, at an event sponsored by the Rio Grande Foundation.
Sidenote, well, no topic given.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65068
(Yes, Randal has addressed this before.)
s
Lahood, the anti-marketist (& RINO)(Hey, I dislike ~1/2 of all Repubs) that he is, wants more bicycle lanes. His gist seem to be that too much for roads or not enough balance for other. ???
Balance? Look at mile traveled.
More people need more lanes; more income leads to more more roads, Duh!!!
People have chosen to move away from mass density.
Look at any major city easy of the Mississippi (+ St.Louis).
Yes, NYC has finally increased, but Manhattan had more people in 1900. Byoah’!
Well, consider these facts when bicycling for errands/work:
1. bike trips are like <0.05% of all travel; not done much past 2 miles.
2. Half conditions are bad: cold, rain, hills, thugs, goons, spikes, dikes, etc.
3. Carrying stuff.
4. Sweat. Many leftists don't care much for hygiene.
5. Accidents. Hey, there are vehicles on the road.
6. Stature (not the material-wise).
7. Rust.
8. Flat tires. Who's gonna blow?
9. Ass ache. Some leftists (ie SF) might be used to that. Although many taxpayers are, for another reason.
10. Peace'o'mind.
11. Music. (headphones dangerous)
12. Relax.
13. Falling down when looking too much.
14. Can't eat (bad in car anyway)
15. Look like dropout.
16. Drop stuff.
17. Interfere with squat workout.
18. More likelihood of theft to bike.
19. Dress gets stuck.
20. Splashes.
21. Bloods & Cripps ceremony.
22. Alien abduction.
23. Driveby shooting.
24. Journalism interview.
25. General kidnapping.
26. Drug offer (could be good).
27. DEA stop.
28. ICE stop.
29. Hillbilly stop.
30. Brick walls.
31. Tar & feather.
32. Door-door salesman.
33. Telemarketers.
34. Yelling.
35. Sarcasm. OMG!
36. The horror.
Hey, bicycling is good, but there are vast limitations.
(BTW, a few years ago I biked to 2 jobs at 2 miles each (DUI), hated it.)
(I occasionally bike now; not for work; for leisure or save few minutes of walking. I do lift weights; am big)
It would be good to have more sidewalks-lanes for that, but going all out is a waste of money.
And, it will not come close to solving anything.
Scott,
For all the crap you give Dan, I’m finding it hard to imagine your comment having more hyperbole, indignation, and inflated rhetoric. I know that many of us around here call the kettle black sometimes, but you are by far the most two-faced.
Yes, I agree with Bennett. Both sides should tone down the hyperbole and inflated rhetoric. Let’s discuss facts and ideas.
THANK YOU BOREALIS.
Scott, can you explain what your idea for more sidewalk-lanes would look like? Would this be a ballot initiative? Could the lanes be maintained by tolls or some sort of tax targeted towards bike users?
Ha ha ha people. I’m sorry that my sarcasm interfered with your understanding of the valid points.
My emphasis was on the limitations of bicycles, including the negatives & little benefits.
I added exaggerations, irrelevances, non-sequitors, minor items, non-existents & such. It was partly an attempt to lighten things up & add humor. I was hoping that readers could see the distinction. I thought it would be clear that I added “bogus” crap, particularly on the last half of the list.
Not sure what this has to with Dan or his style. He seems to focus on insults, other personal items, colorful vagueness, generalities, extremes & such. While some of those might be seen in my post, much of it was non-serious.
Here are the main valid points:
1. Bike trips are like <0.05% of all travel; not done much past 2 miles.
2. Half conditions are bad: cold, rain, hills, traffic, etc.
3. Carrying stuff.
4. Sweat.
5. Accidents. Hey, there are vehicles on the road.
11. Audio (headphones dangerous).
12. Relaxing, non-strenuous.
I didn’t propose bike-lanes, so not sure why bbream asked me?
However, there are current space limitations & overall, there would be little use. Look at VMT.
Sure, there are climate friendly, high density places, which often do have bike-lanes.
As for “2-facedâ€, that is not accurate, which means having different messages to different situations/groups. I think what was meant is hypocrisy or a double-standard.
Regardless, Bennett, please elaborate on the perception. I can explain how that is not true.
In addition to bikes, I touched on people moving moving away from core cities, since the 50s & the many reasons & advantages for more driving. Those are facts.
People have freely chosen their transport & living options, albeit somewhat dependent on income. That is debated, but one cannot expect, many nearby jobs, stores & public transit at many lower densities. Part of the statist movement has to force people to use non-car modes.
Scott, your points were so much better made without the hyperbole. If you have to make a joke or gently rib the other side, it is best to separate that and just label it is a joke. After all, we can’t hear your tone of voice.
I am frustrated by the cycling to work data. I love cycling, but almost only as recreation, and I love the bike trails that are available. Certainly kids and adults bike and walk to work and school, but consistent long distance commuting by bicycle has to be very rare (i.e. far less than 1%). I share the frustration of cycling getting more than its share of investment in some projects.
Scott–My apologies, I read “sidewalks-lanes” as “sidewalk-lanes” and thought you meant some sort of bike-only lane on roads.
So let’s say that bike lanes/trails should be given to recreation rather than commuting. Does this change perspectives regarding public money being used to support bikes in parks or trails?
bbream, Well, sidewalks-lanes could be above the curb or curb separated; details irrelevant–terminology is not he point.
As for bike paths, I typed they would be “good”, as in “nice”, but that’s not necessarily a position that they should be built (many ramifications), and not considering all the pros, cons & costs in making new bike lanes.
Anti-gravity boots, non-obesity pills, no more crime, would all be “good”.
How is all “goodness” to be achieved & what price & what detriment?
There are many things that would be “good”, but are not worth the cost & drawbacks.
Public funding is tricky & is obviously being done in some places.
Over-reliance on bike paths in comparison to use (ie climate, density, as mentioned) & other public spending are factors.
Recreational bike paths are cheap when they are combined with some other land uses, such as protected stream areas; abandoned roads and rails; right-of-ways for pipelines and transmission lines; and other park and greenbelt land uses.
A greater expense is adjusting road bridges to allow continual bike routes. If the bridges are already being built, the cost is not so much. But retrofitting can be expensive.
But recreational bike routes don’t necessarily help commuting. It is expensive to allocate limited arterial space for bike lanes.
But recreational bike routes don’t necessarily help commuting. It is expensive to allocate limited arterial space for bike lanes.
Sure they do. But you need facilities at work as well. When I worked for the bank, we had a locker room put in and folks started cycling in immediately.
And bike lanes are tied to funding for road projects – roads are multimodal and not autocentric. Ped facilities, bike facilities, green infra., etc. That’s how it is.
DS