Today’s Headlines

  • Park(ing) Day Recaps (News, Boston Herald, CNET, New Haven Indy)
  • U.S. Cities Rethink Parking Requirements (AP)
  • Cyclists Call for Better Bike Network in Queens (News)
  • A Look at Bike/Car Conflict on Brooklyn Streets (Bklyn Paper)
  • Portlanders May Soon Have to Get License to Bike (Portland Trib)
  • Designs Unveiled for ‘West Side Boulevard’ (Post)
  • NYCT to Expand Subway Line Manager Program (NYT)
  • MTA Pays High Price to Extend Bus Fuel Contract, Sets Bus Reliability Record (News, News)
  • Fuel Prices Raise Cost of Operating S.I. Ferry (Post)
  • Ithaca Group Wants to Fix Traffic Woes With Personal Rapid Transit (NYT)
  • Larry Littlefield

    You missed the most important article of all, the one that would contribute the greatest understanding of what our future is.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/nyregion/21lirr.html

    The increases school spending in the wake of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision, described as a way to provide fairness and a decent education for NYC students, has instead gone to teacher retirement at age 55 instead of 62 and even more excess spending in the rest of the state. And now the city’s schools will face devastating cutbacks in services as teachers, whether retired or not, are paid not to work.

    Similarly, higher fares and taxes to save the MTA will go to “fairness” for New York City Transit employees, so they can enjoy the same “rights” as LIRR workers, with 97% of them also receiving lucrative disability pensions at age 55. It’s hopeless.

    By the way, has anyone been following the consequences of similar self-dealing over the past decade or two in the financial sector?

    I’ve been spending too much time interacting with people who earn their keep, meet their responsibilities, and live modestly, some of whom get around by bicycle. Our culture is dominated by other values I now see.

  • Now that the presidential race is down to two candidates, it just keeps getting easier to choose which one is “the livable streets candidate.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/160091?GT1=43002

  • No to licensing bicycles. You license machines such as automobiles and guns, which pose a high potential of danger to the public with their misuse or abuse. You don’t license people who move about town under their own physical power. Sorry.

  • Portland:
    “For those thankfully few bike rebels who’d rather fight than submit to any sort of government regulation of their favorite pastime: It’s time to grow up.”

    Submission to unnecessary, aimless, and costly government intrusion is the definition of adulthood, obviously? If Phil Stanford’s best case for a bike riding license is to call everyone who disagrees with him a child, that tells me all I need to know about it. And by the way, the strategy of capitulating to angry motorists on every issue since the invention of the automobile will not, of course, stop with this particular nonsense. Phil’s second commenter charges forward to the next trench:

    “Lets not forget insurance and a means of identifying cyclists so that there is accountability on that side as well as a tax to pay for the roads.”

    How about a tax on agressive stupidity?

  • Councilmember Madeline Provenzano tried to pull a bike licensing stunt in 2004, and it utterly failed:

    http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/streetbeat/askta/041119.html

  • Phil Stanford wants cyclists to grow up and be licensed. Does that apply to children cycling to school too? If they were to grow up then they wouldn’t be children anymore…

  • I agree, no to licensing bicycles. But yes to bike riders obeying traffic laws for the sake of everyone’s safety.

  • The landscaped mounds and hillocks proposed in the center of the west side boulevard are typical of suburban office park design. They are disorienting, since people on the sidewalk on one side of the street cannot see the other side of the street. They also create hidden areas in the middle of the park, which are a magnet for crime: remember Bryant Park when it was surrounded by bushes and you couldn’t see what was going on inside.

  • Here in LA, we not only have bike licensing, the LAPD has started ticketing cyclists who don’t have them on their bikes.

    http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/09/17/yes-you-need-a-license-to-ride-a-bike-in-los-angeles/

  • Thanks for the link, Damien. After reading your post, I’m confused. They may be called “licenses,” but they seem to correspond to what’s called “registration” in the motor vehicle world – documents reinforcing ownership and establishing a right to use the vehicle in that jurisdiction. They do not affect individuals’ rights to ride any properly-registered bicycle they choose (with the owner’s permission, of course). Am I right?

    One of the things I noticed in the congestion pricing debate was that some motorists were ready to challenge anything that made it more difficult to drive on the basis of the Interstate Commerce Clause. It seems to me that by making it so difficult to license a bike, they make it de facto illegal to visit the city by bicycle.

    I know some people (and I’ve read of others) who have ridden coast to coast. So that means that if a friend of mine were to ride from here to LA, he would have to report directly to this Central Police Office upon entering the city, and would be subject to a ticket and fine if a cop stops him before he gets there? Is it even legal for non-residents to register bikes in LA?

  • Baffling…

    How long until I have to buy a license for me pet ‘alibut, Eric?

  • This should be a headline – Car-Free London attracts 50,000 cyclists

    http://tinyurl.com/3nkdca

  • “Baffling…

    How long until I have to buy a license for me pet ‘alibut, Eric?”

    Are all your pets called Eric?