Skip to content

Recent Comments



    I think the difference in this country is that the cycletrack design is often substantially compromised.

    Here’s two, on different sides of the same road:

    One is very nice, the other is really not. Notice how the bad side is often at the same level as the street and with a raised curb separating it from the sidewalk, and other places at the same level as the sidewalk with a raised curb separating it from the street, and all the obstacles that have been placed along the sidewalk-cycletrack boundary. (The snowplowing has gotten better; I think the complaint above played a part in that).

    For at least one of the driveways the visibility is not that good — there has twice been a moment of mutual surprise when I biked past the exit from 725 Concord:,+Cambridge,+MA+02138/@42.390307,-71.152039,3a,45y,330.81h,77.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBi3ZTCJc0iV9gDR_356kWA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e377a3ea8bdea1:0x2ebeff9e9ae7c4f2

    Salmoning on the good side is very popular, and since the combined sidewalk-cycletrack is the same width as the popular Minuteman Bikeway bidirectional multi use path, there’s not that much of an actual problem from that.


    Karen Loewen

    I suspect you aren’t effective at anything.



    That’s infeasible.

    The saving grace for driveways is that cars are going at very low speeds in them. With cycletrack designs such as the above, it’s even safer. It sounds like you haven’t gotten the chance to bike on infrastructure like this but it really does work well in practice.

    Btw, just for perspective about 20% of car-bike collisions occur mid-block, with about 80% at intersections. Not that mid-block designs (such as the cycletrack in the video above on the driveway-laden stretch) aren’t important but this means we need to focus on things like protected intersections all the more.


    Joe R.

    OK, but you’re depending upon the car drivers to give priority. I greatly prefer complete physical separation so bikes and cars don’t cross paths at all. I could however buy into this design if each driveway had railroad crossing style gates that go down whenever a bike is passing by. That physically prevents a collision.



    “Examples might be on streets with many driveways or traffic signals. In both cases, the primary way cyclists get hurt/killed isn’t from vehicles next to them, but rather vehicles coming from driveways or intersections. Protected bike lanes don’t “protect” in those situations.”

    Oh, but they do!
    Again, the same laws of physics also apply in the US:×548.jpg

    It works just fine! Your objections sound theoretical and not based on real-life experience with this kind of infrastructure.

    “Not sure what you mean by ‘smart signalization’,”

    There are many permutations. Tomes of which could be written about, but some examples:

    Again, if it needs to be “proven” with American-style design:

    “(which really end up hurting as many riders as they benefit),”

    How? Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

    “then we’re needlessly adding mechanization/complexity, and also depending upon user compliance for the entire system to work even passably well.”

    Do you have citations for this claim? Places in the US as diverse as Long Beach to New York to Chicago have noticed compliance with bike laws goes up with better protected infrastructure.

    Current rule-breaking is not because most people on bikes *want* to do things like ride on sidewalks and the like—those are mere coping strategies for dealing with the current status quo of terrible infrastructure. Meanwhile practically every city that has introduced protected infra has found bike user compliance goes *up* after:

    “What treatment other than grade-separated viaducts can give cyclists a fast, safe, pleasant trip?”

    Plenty! Separated protected cycletracks with protected intersections (<- this is key!) do a fantastic job of this. Off-road (whether out on fields/riverbeds/etc. or elevated) bikeways will work some places but cost and design challenges are prohibitive in built-up places like NYC.

    "Sure, protected lanes dramatically decrease sidewalk riding. That's a good thing for sure but they don't really address many other issues."

    Yup. That's why cycletracks aren't the only solution in the toolkit. No one's saying they are.

    I'm not sure where you're gleaning this supposed protected-infra-only obsession from Streetsblog. Let's look at the 10 most recent posts from Streetsblog USA:

    1) "Getting Rural Kids Walking and Biking: A Case Study From Northeast Iowa"

    2) "Satirical “Bicycle Lobby” Twitter Account Fakes Out Media Giants"

    3) "America’s Myopic Public Debate About Tolling Roads"

    4) "Study: People Living Near Biking and Walking Paths Get More Exercise"

    5) "Answers to Your Top 6 Questions About Obama’s New Infrastructure Initiative"

    6) "Will Texas DOT Gouge Another Highway Through Dallas?"

    7) "Contraflow Bike Lanes Finally Get Nod From U.S. Engineering Establishment"

    8) "Best Bike Cities? Forget the Census, Let’s Start Asking Mobile Apps"

    9) "Other Cities Look to Tear Down Their Old Highways, But Not Denver"

    10) "We Need a New Term to Describe Uber and Lyft"

    These headlines do not bespeak an obsession with any particular form of infrastructure but a holistic view of better policy and complete streets in general. Reading in anything else to the overall tone seems pretty projection-y.



    So, just kidding about the “good bye”?

    And (1) that is an anecdote, not a statistic — people riding with traffic are also run down and killed; and (2) the contraflow lanes are not installed willy-nilly, but are instead put in where they make sense. They would make a ton of sense on quiet one-way streets in Cambridge and Somerville neighborhoods. They would not make sense on high-traffic one-way streets, like the street described in that news article. And note that in some cases described below the contraflow lane includes some physical protection, unlike the sidewalk, so why do you think this is relevant?

    Seriously, if you feel so unwelcome here, why don’t you stay away? Feel free to feel like you’re the expert, go right ahead, just go away. We’ve heard it all before, some of us are even former effective cyclists and have said similar things ourselves in the past. You’re not bringing anything new to the conversation at all.


    Joe R.

    No, I haven’t seen Streetsblog or any other advocacy site ask for protected lanes on every street. However, I do see it being suggested far too often when it’s not the best, or even a good, solution. Examples might be on streets with many driveways or traffic signals. In both cases, the primary way cyclists get hurt/killed isn’t from vehicles next to them, but rather vehicles coming from driveways or intersections. Protected bike lanes don’t “protect” in those situations.

    Of course we’re nowhere near using all the tools in the toolkit, which is exactly why I think the focus on protected bike lanes is misguided. I also often find the proposed solutions to some of the safety or other issues way off-base. Not sure what you mean by “smart signalization”, but honestly once we reach the point where we’re thinking about separate phases for bikes in protected lanes and turning cars, or so-called timed signals for bikes (which really end up hurting as many riders as they benefit), then we’re needlessly adding mechanization/complexity, and also depending upon user compliance for the entire system to work even passably well. Solutions should be self-enforcing and they shouldn’t impact travel speeds. Streetsblog, or at least a significant number of regulars who post here, is particularly averse to grade-separated solutions as I mentioned even though in my mind they’re really the only viable answer to get bikes through crowded cities without undue delays or constant red light running. Since you mentioned arterials, many of these arterials, particularly in places like NYC, not only have aggressive motor traffic but also have way too many traffic signals. What treatment other than grade-separated viaducts can give cyclists a fast, safe, pleasant trip? Honestly, I can’t think of any. In the end I understand the reflexive opposition to this type of treatment since it resembles the highways which ruined many inner cities. However, these viaducts won’t divide neighborhoods, and designed right they could actually enhance the street, even provide protection from inclement weather for pedestrians under them.

    Since you mentioned physics and human nature in another post, it’s a simple fact that if you ask cyclists to stop more often than is comfortable for them, most won’t. If you have a system which depends upon user compliance for safety, it breaks down at that point. Most inner cities reached that point about 30-40 years ago when they had to install traffic signals galore to prevent cars from colliding with each other. That’s when the only way to ride efficiently, quickly, and often safely was to break the law. Cyclists have been fighting an uphill battle to get infrastructure installed ever since thanks to this outlaw reputation. It doesn’t help matters when the design of much present bike infrastructure still encourages law-breaking. Sure, protected lanes dramatically decrease sidewalk riding. That’s a good thing for sure but they don’t really address many other issues.

    I agree we need to look at all strategies in the toolkit. That includes ones which as far as I can tell haven’t even been on the radars of most traffic engineers, and also the ones which seem to be instinctively rejected by many advocacy sites. In the end we can do things cheaply or do things well. We probably can’t do both, although of course that’s a worthy goal.



    Is the software simple and open source? We need to build things for a post NSA snooping world.



    Robotaxies could use load balancing to move excess out of city center when not in use.

    Or personal cars could park millimeters away from each other (since they could drop you off first) and then block each other in, coordinating exit routines with other cars instead of leaving passage ways in parking lots.

    But instead of imagining possibilities, we need to deal with realities. We are not close to cars being able to handle everything NYC can throw at them. And when the first person gets killed, who is going to go to jail? Both the driver and cat company will pass the buck, making driverless cars into blameless killing machines (which is at least slightly worse then what we have now).



    Self driving cars doesn’t solve the problem that there is nothing to do in the suburbs. Hopefully the reasons families are drawn to cities is to culturally stimulate their children, not just because of the good public transit. Long commute or not, I’d rather my kid have more to do then drinking, drugs and under age sex.



    Car company and gas lobbyists will make sure drivers never need to fund the infrastructure only people rich enough to pay for cars are allowed to use.


    Karen Loewen

    “The driver, 26-year-old Terra Zahn, who faces no charges in the
    incident, told police she was waiting to turn right and looking to her
    left. When she saw a break in traffic, she accelerated, not realizing
    Adams was coming from the right”


    Karen Loewen



    Mainstream news will kill you.



    The 1950s thinking is definitely a problem.

    A big part of the issue, though, is not always with unimaginative engineers but with 1950s-era laws strictly governing what those engineers can and can’t do. For example, in California there are currently no Caltrans guidelines for some of these more progressive infrastructure treatments, so engineers and cities have felt reluctant to implement them lest they incur Caltrans’s wrath. Thankfully, that could be about to change:

    Another California example that has constrained non-car projects (perversely in the name of protecting the environment) under CEQA/LOS requirements:

    Of course, I’m not entirely sure why we always have to spend decades proving that the same laws of physics and human nature that work in other parts of the globe also apply here. The Dutch CROW guide has been translated into English for anyone to use, after all:

    For some reason the whole VC Only magical-thinking thing still holds quite a grip on Anglosphere countries (though thankfully empirical facts-based reason gradually seems to be winning out in terms of infrastructure policy). The same Dutch-skepticism is also found in the UK, where again they’re trying to test out whether the laws of physics that apply 82 miles east of them in the Netherlands also apply there:

    Yes, people, the stuff works!



    You’d think these high paid engineers would be able to come up with some more progressive ideas. We’ve had the same problems for generative and yet the vast majority of our infrastructure is still working with a 1950′s mentality. I’m glad there is at least some innovation, but it’s so painfully slow that if this is the best they could come up with, these engineers should really consider a new line of work, like teaching history.



    Different contexts definitely dictate different solutions. I don’t think anyone on Streetsblog or similar sites has ever advocated protected bikeways on every street. I’ve never seen anyone say that, at least.

    In fact, I think most here would agree that it’s probably only a minority of streets comparatively that need separated treatments–however, since these usually involve *key* arterial routes they are often disproportionately important to their raw numbers. Hence the attention given to them.

    The thing is, though, we’re nowhere near that 15% or whatever number of key protected routes. We’re also nowhere near implementing other important strategies in the toolkit (shared-space Bike Streets, smart signalization, bikeshare, commuter benefits advocacy, etc.) in a pervasive enough fashion to encourage further ridership.

    Reading through the site objectively you’ll find that *is* that bigger holistic picture that Streetsblog is advocating for. To imply people here are demanding protected infra on every street is projecting and not based on anything anyone is actually saying.


    Joe R.

    I personally think Streetsblog is a great resource but like many advocacy sites it often can’t see the trees for the forest. For example, there seems to be a reflexive rejection here of all things grade-separated, probably on the notion that grade-separated=urban highway=bad. And then there’s the bias for protected bike lanes which you noticed. Different circumstances often dictate what is the optimal solution. Protected bike lanes are not a universal solution to all ills with bike infrastructure. In many cases they’re an even worse solution than just doing nothing. We need to look at things the way any good engineer would. You put all solutions on the table. You don’t reject (or use) any solution until you’ve thoroughly analyzed the problem. If we did that, we might find protected lanes are the best solution 15% of the time, doing nothing might work 20% of the time, perhaps (ouch) grade separation might be the best solution 25% of the time, etc. To outright reject certain ideas purely on principal and to espouse others without much thought because they’re the latest “in” thing is exactly what leads to lousy solutions.


    Joe R.

    The key word here is “good”. In practice that means grade separation at intersections, or putting bike routes where they avoid traffic signals or stop signs. The free right turn is a great thing but it’s no panacea when you’re moving straight ahead on a road with many traffic signals. I think if we build bicycle infrastructure then it should be only because it’s an improvement over simply riding in the street. Simply putting protected lanes on a street with many traffic signals doesn’t improve things. Arguably it makes them worse for many cyclists because the typically slower speeds in a protected lane mean you’ll get caught at more red signals.

    We need to think more holistically about bicycle infrastructure. For example, we might see a street where VCers already can manage good average speeds but nobody else rides there because motor traffic is too aggressive. That street might be a perfect candidate for a protected bike lane. This would encourage less experienced riders to use the street, and the VCers could still ride fast in the protected bike lane (provided room for passing was provided which should be the case on all bicycle infrastructure). On streets where lots of traffic signals present a problem, we should examine the route to see where traffic signals can be eliminated, and where it’s feasible to take the bike route above or below street level to avoid signaled intersections altogether. Just slapping a bike route down on a street to increase the bike lane mileage in a city does nobody any good. I would rather have 100 miles of great infrastructure than 500 miles of stuff which maybe might make an 8-year old feel safer but which is useless to most everyone else.

    In the end I tend to think a lot of the reflexive VC opposition to bike infrastructure isn’t on principle, but rather simply because 99% of the bike infrastructure in the US is lousy.



    I thought I had a bit of respect for Borough President Eric Adams until his crazy comments today about this ‘terrorist’ action. I guess 7 months is pretty good. I usually have lost faith in local politicians before they even finish with the election!


    Joe R.

    The goal of any form of transportation is ultimately to get where you’re going as fast as possible, subject of course to the particular constraints of the mode and safety. Speed is secondary only to safety for any other mode. I see no reason we should accept otherwise for bicycles.

    Speed and safety are not incompatible when it comes to good bicycle infrastructure. Granted, sometimes the end result is increased cost but in general that’s the price you pay for speed increases in any mode. The nice thing is even great bicycle infrastructure is dirt cheap compared to anything else. The problem is cycling advocates have been so afraid to ask for enough money to build decent infrastructure that we often end up settling for whatever can be done with only paint.

    Room for passing is important regardless of the type of riders you have or else if the path is crowded all riders will be stuck behind the slowest rider. Just as a 20 mph cyclist can’t stand being stuck behind a 12 mph cyclist, I highly doubt your average 12 mph cyclist would appreciate being stuck behind a child cyclist going 6 mph for many blocks.

    There’s another reason for the focus on speed-bicycles are pretty much unique in the transportation world in that stops are burdensome, and any given cyclist can only stop/start a limited number of times in a trip. Any focus on increasing speed, which in practice means limiting the number of stops/slowdowns, will benefit cyclists of all abilities, not just fast ones. It’s not only much more efficient to ride without stopping or slowing, but it’s also a heck of a lot more pleasant. In the end we need to realize travel time factors heavily into a person’s decision of which mode to use. If we map out bike routes where even an average rider can get there as fast or faster than driving (not too difficult in places with heavy motor traffic congestion) then we’ll actually succeed in getting large numbers of people to switch from car to bike. On the other hand, just making biking safer, but very slow, isn’t going to attract a lot of converts. In that case, many of those biking might be former public transit users or walkers.


    Adam Herstein

    It’s all just theatrics.



    Here’s a real patriot – thumbs up to Miller!


    Oregon Mamacita

    I flagged both comments because they are an attempt to reveal the identity of a fellow blogger. I do not know who “Alison Cohen” is. It is intersting, folks, how the only response to my charges of unethical behavior, all the pro-Alta folks can do is make an ad hominem attack on someone named “Alsion.” You have no facts on your side- the facts are clear in Portland. Alta accepted an unearned progress payment. Read the news.



    If you read the paper, you’d see they take into account income differences – wealth doesn’t play a factor in their final analysis.



    Yeah, and what the VC-only crowd seems to miss is that you can go just as fast or faster on good bike-specific infrastructure. For example, with a protected intersection you get a freebie no-stop right turn on a red/stop sign which you never get biking vehicularly. All of a sudden half of all your turns are fast and stop-free.

    I think the VC-only crowd may just not have experience biking on pervasive, good bike-specific infrastructure. The objections sound theoretical to me. In practice it works excellently practically all the time. That can’t be said about VC.


    Phantom Commuter

    More benefits for rich communities


    Fay Nissenbaum

    that makes this much clearer. thx.


    Fay Nissenbaum

    thank you



    and in a more shocking revelation.

    The sun provides light in the daytime.



    Thanks to you as well Richard, for your thoughtful comments as well as for your participation in these important NCUTCD recommendations.

    With regards to engineering institutions being “averse to change”, I understand that need when it comes to federal standards but have always thought that it should be applied as a “lead from behind” approach in terms of how bikeways are designed and built locally. At least here in California, the bike planners I work with are constantly stymied by the legal liability associated with diverging from state standards, and unable to simply use their professional judgement and incorporate progressive bikeway treatments that are known to attract more cyclists and encourage safety. There are usually a number of years between editions of the MUTCD, and then some time before that update transfers to the state edition, and even then new local projects which incorporate the new standards aren’t actually constructed for another few years. In the meantime a lot of things can change, and a lot of opportunities can be missed.

    Instead the trickle-down approach of federal to state to local guidance should be reversed, so that cities with enough staff and resources are allowed to design progressive facilities and standards from the ground up (no, state-sanctioned experiments alone aren’t good enough, as they are limited and require otherwise unnecessary installation phases and data collection). Then, the information gleaned from these local facilities can be compiled into state and then federal guidelines, for the purpose of allowing smaller cities without dedicated bike planning staff to install similar facilities without all of the extra overhead required.

    There is some legislation in the works here in California to give local planners this kind of flexibility, but it is definitely frustrating knowing how many good plans and ideas had to be scrapped along the way.



    Agreed, but the Dutch approach is way more expensive, and in my neck of the woods we are struggling to even get the above sort of designs approved. There really needs to be a sea change on a national level as to how we fund and construct bike infrastructure in urban environments.



    We can only hope that the 8-80 crowd have the opportunity to do all the things you’ve done, Caryn.


    Karen Loewen

    Good bye Streetsblog USA. I stumbled upon you on FB. I’m glad I came but I’m glad I’m leaving too. It’s like sitting in a room with people on other side of the your political spectrum. You spend a lot of time shaking your head. Sad thing is that we are all cyclists butting heads and destroying our cause from the inside. Sad.

    I’m thinking your should change your name to “Sidepaths USA” or “Cyclepath USA” or “Protected USA” or “Buffered USA” so as to not drag in people who are happy to ride in the street.

    Because putting the wors Street in your title is an oxymoron. And quite funny. In a really sad sort of way.


    Karen Loewen

    Thanks for the conversation Romeo. I am not a warrior. I’m a 47 year old woman who rides her bike to work – in traffic. That doesn’t need someone to make special arrangements and build special things for her. That doesn’t think the other drivers are terrible. That took the time to learn what makes her safe. That hopes she doesn’t get forced into some “sense of safety” facility designed and promoted by people who haven’t done the same things she has.

    I’m so glad I got to hear your input. Makes my mind so much clearer.

    Good luck to you.


    Richard C. Moeur

    Joining the discussion a bit late here.

    Thanks to Ms. Schmitt for noting that this is but one step – albeit an important one. These recommendations will now go to FHWA for possible inclusion in the next edition of the MUTCD. Note that these are just the latest in a longer list of bicycle-focused recommendations approved by NCUTCD since 2010 – see for the full list. Also, when the draft MUTCD is sent out for public comment as part of rulemaking, anyone can comment, not just “engineering institutions that have historically been averse to change” (by the way, that careful and deliberate pace of change is usually a feature, not a bug.) :)

    Whether these devices and treatments “make American streets safer for biking” will depend on how well and wisely they are used. The MUTCD will define the sign, marking, or other device and give very basic rules – other design guidance, such as that published by ITE and other reputable organizations, will more thoroughly cover their appropriate placement and application.

    For one example: on streets with a contraflow bike lane, it may not be best to use ONE WAY signs, as the street is a two-way street – just one way for motorized modes. If road users can be given the clear impression that two-way traffic is expected, that could help in reducing the risk of conflicts and crashes based on incorrect expectations.

    And one final restatement of the obvious: if yer gonna disagree, disagree on the issues and facts, and don’t make assumptions as to the character and motivations of the person or organization you’re disagreeing with. We deliberately have a diversity of viewpoints in the technical committee, and one of the things that’s expected is to work the issue based on data, observations, experience, and good judgment, and not be distracted by the person/group/faction. I think we get much better product that way.



    That’s what I’m saying…VC isn’t going to be turning onto a sidewalk that isn’t a drive way, so why are you so worried about getting over there in the middle of the street? There’s no business to get to over there. Only a scofflaw would be trying to get over there without the divider…why are you so worried about allowing the scofflaw over there? This isn’t the holy end-all be-all solution, no one’s ever claimed it ought to be. It works in some places, oh noes!

    And wait a minute…since you disapprove of this horrible device, you’ll be riding the 8 blocks around it, anyway. No one’s made the well-trained warriors who are so clever that they don’t even need to be brave go through here…even if you came on a Bike-to-Work Day Commuter Convoy with your supervisor, you’d still be quite welcome to eschew the contra-flow lane.

    You’re a warrior, you credit it to your well-educated street skills but I bet you are willing to ride where many others don’t, won’t, or will with anxiety and reservation. I bet the 8-80 crowd doesn’t follow in your treadmarks even with a formal class under their belts.

    But I guess you know what’s best for absolutely every conceivable situation; if you like it, you’d better put a car in it.


    Jeremi Czarnecki

    I am not quite sure what the chart above is supposed to represent, but what I am reading from it is that the closer people live to “Connect2″ (whatever it is, not explicitly explained in the article) the more likely they are to use it (DUH!). Secondly, the proximity of said “Connect2″ seems IRELLEVANT for the amount of walking and cycling they get every week.


    Karen Loewen

    I also stumbled upon this blog by accident. It is always good to hear what others are thinking. After conversing with all you nice folks, I am even more sure that I am right in my stance. Thank you. Good luck to you.


    Karen Loewen

    I have never claimed to be a vehicular cyclist. You all made that assumption. You are right. It is not popular. But like any new idea, it grows and expands and new ideas come from it. I am a Savvy Cyclist. We believe that bikes and cars can drive on the same streets together in a compatible manner. We do expect to force anyone to do anything. We learn traffic dynamics and learn how to use them to our advantage. We control our lanes when we have other vehicles around us just like a motorcycle. We believe that slower speeds are to our advantage. We communicate with motorist and treat them with respect. We get respect from them. It’s been years since I had a nasty interaction with a motorist…it’s such a thing of the past, I don’t think about it…ever. As I said in a couple other posts, I believe that being part of the transportation system, as a transportation cyclist, is safe and fun. I am also not super brave or fast or strong on the bike. I am a 47 year old woman who drives her bike to work, to the grocery store, to the movie, to the post office… ANY WHERE I WANT TO GO. My most fearful moments come when riding in a bike lane that I am forced to ride in by folks who said they would be safer but really just wanted to move my butt out of their way. I am a Cycling Savvy instructor who is passionate about empowering people to be part of the transportation system.


    Karen Loewen

    So, you think we should make everyone where training wheels so the new ones can join us? We all started out as beginners. I am not a beast, or especailly fast and certainly not brave. YET, some how I learned to ride confidently and happily in traffic as part of the transportation system. I am not a vehicular cyclist. I am part of the transportation system. And I’m not interested in bringin a whole bunch of new cyclists in there unless they know what they are doing….so they can safely and without conflict with me get to your facilities. :*)


    Karen Loewen

    The vehicular cyclist? ride on the sidewalk?

    So, bottom line is in your protected lane you can’t make turns into driveways or businesses on the other side of the “buffer” ….you have to ride to the next intersection and then double back on the sidewalk to go back to the business you want to go to? Really? This sounds good to you?

    You may be an awesome warrior but I am just a person riding to work. I believe to use the transportation system, I don’t have to be fast, strong or brave. Just have to be educated on traffic dynamics and safe cycling practices.

    You hang in there with that warrior stuff in your buffered with plants bike lane. ;*)


    Karen Loewen

    The intersections at thos sstreets are dangerous…especially if you are out of the system in a bike lane or riding in the gutter. The fixes that you propose do not fix the intersections – they actually make them worse by putting us further out of the system. INVISIBLE to other vehicles in the system.



    Ah MamaCita aka Alison Cohen. Damaged Alta irreparably in NY, got let loose and now can’t bash her own work enough as if she was never there which is just wild. If you hire her new company you will have what happened in NY happen to you. Ethics anyone?


    Truth hurts

    Josh, can’t you stop yourself from posting incessantly on every bike share conversation? You are embarrassing yourself at this point no matter how many names you use. Only people who work in the industry post in these comments anyway. Pretty sad. Maybe you never win contracts because you are such an incredibly hard person to work for or with. I should know since I worked for you. No one wants to deal with this crap which is why Trek dispensed with you. You are a liability.


    John Ross

    The feds no little about P3s. What they do know is what they learned from the States and locals who actually DO P3s. Thus, to say the States can learn from the feds is false. The States learn from each other.


    Truth hurts

    I think it is hilarious that Alison Cohen who is the person who ran Alta Bike Share so poorly as President keeps posting on every thread anonymously because she can’t get her new company off the ground. Alison you are the one who is responsible for the NY mess which is the genesis of all of these problems and then got canned. So you and your friend Josh Squire should stop clogging the message boards with your crap under 12 different fake names and just admit your epic fails.



    A lot of the VCs are just like the car drivers that can’t stand the idea of anything slowing them down, including bikes in the slow bike lane where they don’t have room to pass. Their goal isn’t to increase cycling. It’s just to get where they’re going as fast as they can on a bike.



    What’s so perplexing about VC-as-policy is that even the VC-über-alles crowd tends to acknowledge the need for sidewalks, especially on busy roads. No one much seems to decry sidewalks on an important route as “inferior” or “segregation.” In fact, when someone does, it’s obviously a joke:

    High-quality walking-specific infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, pedestrian-friendly timing, etc.) does a pretty great job of channeling people on foot.

    High-quality bike-specific infrastructure (e.g. cycletracks, bike-friendly timing, Bike Streets, contraflow lanes, etc.) does a pretty great job of channeling people on bike.

    VC-as-coping strategy is understandable. We all bike vehicularly at times as needed. Yet VC-as-infrastructure/modeshare-increasing strategy has proven to be laughably ineffective.



    I know intersections where bike boxes work, but to me this intersection is crying out for the Dutch design. It is way to complex.