transportation alternatives

Ballotpedia.org reports that the total indebtedness of the fifty states is approximately $1,149,926,081,000. U.S. Governmentdebt.com estimates that New York has the highest debt of any state in the nation. This is in addition to the federal government’s $21,000,000,000,000 debt.

The states, of course, do not have the right to print money, so their debt problems begin to hit crucial interests more rapidly than Washington’s. State and local pensioners could soon feel the impact. That is why spending programs both large and small need to examined. It is vital to consider whether funds committed actually fulfill a valid purpose, or are they merely a cave-in to vocal advocates and special interests.

One popular concept that has spread across the nation is the dedication of portions of roads to bike lanes, and the use of tax dollars to carve up roads to prove greater safety for cyclists. As this column has previously reported, despite the diligent lobbying of politically active and media-savvy supporters, this is a prime example of how state and local funds are wasted.

Seattle Curbed recently released a report on a study in their city, which has a weather climate, an urban geography much more conducive to cycling than many municipalities, and a population that is quite enthusiastic about the practice of bike commuting. Despite all those advantages, it found that commutes by bikes or mopeds accounted for only a “tiny fraction…0.6%” of commuters.

Despite the ardent support of politicians seeking to gain from their association with the activists, this is a very small portion of commuters to justify the expense and the inconvenience caused by bike lanes. Despite that, as noted by Crain’s New York, Mayor De Blasio’s “Department of Transportation vowed…to add 10 miles of protected bicycle lanes and allocate 50 lane miles of regular bikeways annually starting this year…The number of bike paths citywide has more than doubled in the last decade, to 1,133 miles from 513 miles in 2006. Of the existing paths, 425 miles are protected, meaning they are protected from automobile traffic by a physical barrier, not just paint. Last year, the city installed a record 15 such paths.”

This is an essential component which helps the person in getting back to their normal love life. probe viagra How to increase libido in men is through intake of herbal remedies for viagra uk buy seminal discharge such as NF Cure capsules and Vital M-40 capsules are developed in a lab under the supervision of the doctor; since, they advise the best and better. Who are these men usually target the improvement of skills? cialis 5mg uk Not surprisingly, the majority related to the particular communication and problem solving skills. You can do nothing in front of his partner generico viagra on line and also in front of you. Does it make sense for cities like New York or Chicago to spend scarce funds on bike lanes? If only 0.6% of the population use bike lanes, and probably substantially less during periods when weather makes commuting on two wheels impractical, it is hard to justify the expenditure.

There have been reports of citizen revolt against bike lanes. The Wall Street Journal reports that in cities including Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle, Boulder and even the trendy-friendly borough of Brooklyn, NYC, citizens are rising up against the practice of carving up roads for bike lanes. The publication found that ““Retrofitting city streets for protected bike lanes can be pricey. A master plan prepared for Baltimore’s Transportation Department recommended adding 52.5 miles over five years at a cost of $26 million, a tab the plan said could be covered by a mix of local, state and federal funds.”

Author and futurist Syd Mead, writing in The Los Angeles Daily News provides this analysis: “While the bicycle has many virtues, it also prompts people to go overboard. It’s often lauded as the transportation of tomorrow and the savior of cities. It is not. It is called transportation. It is not… It … operates under rigid limitations: the physical condition (and therefore age) of the rider, seasons and weather conditions, and terrain…Today there is an almost messianic insistence that bicycles should be a part of the urban transit mix. …In large urban centers…using a bicycle to traverse 10, 15, or 20 miles one-way is simply not a feasible proposition…A typical busy lane gets used by dozens of automobiles per minute. A bike lane is lucky to be used by dozens of bicyclists in an hour. Imposing bicycle accommodations onto an existing vehicular culture and street alignment is prohibitively complex and preposterously expensive on a per-mile basis. Given the relatively small number of commuters who would use such lanes in comparison to car drivers, any cost/efficiency formulae that purport to justify such infrastructure enter the realm of pure fantasy.”

Unfortunately, practical and fiscally responsible analyses of bike lanes are drowned out by the enthusiasm and political sophistication of bike lane supporters.

Photo: NYC Dept. of Transportation

There are times when wholly incorrect ideas become so established that hardly anyone challenges them. Those that do frequently get ostracized from the marketplace of public conversation. This occurs because a passionate belief in a particular viewpoint overwhelms common sense. Consider, for example, the mass hysteria of Salem, where many young women were executed for being witches.

There is something similar occurring today in transportation planning.

Many urban specialists openly propose that their cities spend funds and devote road space for a transportation mode that would be usable by only an average of 1.2% of commuters, and probably a lot less during the numerous inclement weather days. Add to that, those who do travel this way put their lives at risk.

Object to that proposal at your own political risk, because advocates of the concept—the establishment of bikes lanes—are one of the most organized, outspoken and active pressure groups in city planning today. But a number of voices are starting to be raised, urging a more careful, and far less emotional, examination be done. Earlier this year, an article in the Washington Post noted: “As it turns out, bikes are the most dangerous way to get around with the exception of motorcycles…Nationwide, you’re more than twice as likely to die while riding a bike than riding in a car, per trip, according to a 2007 study led by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Laurie Beck. Bike riding is also about 500 times more fatal than riding in a bus. In addition to accidents, cyclists face another major health risk: Air pollution. Bike commuters inhale about three times as much air pollution as drivers, according to a 2015 study conducted in Fort Collins, Colo.”

Supporters of biking as a city-supported transportation option often point to Europe as an example of what should be done in the U.S. A closer inspection, however, reveals that the comparison does not work out the way they want it to.
Some common side-effects of the medicine- Unlike several other medicines, but it has still maintained its uniqueness. canada cialis online Keeping the above facts in mind, it is important to realize that you are not alone and there are effective ED treatments available in viagra super the male impotence market. Obesity is another problem that cheapest cialis can cause physical and mental exhaustion, which is bad for your erection. The treatment traditional Chinese medicine is more proper, The Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory sildenafil for women Pill is a kind of effective traditional Chinese medicine which can treat the disease perfectly from the root.
American cities are sprawling affairs, not like their more compact counterparts in the Old World, many of which are derived from ancient, walled cities. A British article reports that “Cycling is not practical for the transportation or commuting needs of most people.”

That is even more obvious in geographically-large U.S. cities. Consider New York, for example, which rests within 305 square miles. The major job center rests in downtown Manhattan. The majority of the city’s population lives in the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island and The Bronx. While many residents work in their home boroughs, many do commute to Manhattan, and the distances can be significant. Even a relatively small distance, say, seven miles, turns into a fourteen-mile round trip, which can be extremely challenging. In Winter cold and summer heat, it could be quite an ordeal.

Author and futurist Syd Mead, writing in The Los Angeles Daily News provides this analysis:

“While the bicycle has many virtues, it also prompts people to go overboard. It’s often lauded as the transportation of tomorrow and the savior of cities. It is not. It is called transportation. It is not… It … operates under rigid limitations: the physical condition (and therefore age) of the rider, seasons and weather conditions, and terrain…Today there is an almost messianic insistence that bicycles should be a part of the urban transit mix. …In large urban centers…using a bicycle to traverse 10, 15, or 20 miles one-way is simply not a feasible proposition…A typical busy lane gets used by dozens of automobiles per minute. A bike lane is lucky to be used by dozens of bicyclists in an hour. Imposing bicycle accommodations onto an existing vehicular culture and street alignment is prohibitively complex and preposterously expensive on a per-mile basis. Given the relatively small number of commuters who would use such lanes in comparison to car drivers, any cost/efficiency formulae that purport to justify such infrastructure enter the realm of pure fantasy.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.