There are idiots on bikes. There are idiots in cars. There are considerate people on/in both. But that is beside the point. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in the quality of this article, and was shocked that this was written by a former Dean of Public Affairs at UW. There are important issues alluded to in this article that are worthy of debate, but the article itself is virtually devoid of fact, and consists primarily of fragmentary rants. Please provide some substance as this article provides nothing but fodder for angry comment/reply.

I don't like McGinn and think his parking rates would be counterproductive. (Speaking as a car-less pedestrian and transit user.)

But Locke doesn't understand bike laws or safety. The existence of a bike lane doesn't mean a bicyclist can't use other lanes. I've ridden on the Second Ave bike lane, but sometimes it's important to be farther away from car doors or cars pulling out. If a bicylist can be safer by taking a lane, it's not Locke's business.

Locke uses exageration as a rhetorical tool. Far from turning "converting half our city streets to bike lanes", even with road diets the current car capacity is being maintained.

Now, not all people who ride bikes are Bike Nazis. I'd say almost half are real, civil, courteous folks. But the rest are a burden on the forbearance of their fellow citizens and menace to safety. This mayor's War on Cars only encourages them to act worse. I'm finding myself doing business in Seattle less now than at almost any time since I got my driver's license. I don't see that trend vectoring upward anytime soon. It's not worth the grief.

I guess there are also idiots writing for this online "rag."

A retired Dean of the Public Affairs at the UW? Figures, if you have ever dealt with the UW, they are arrogant in public relations with the city and their neighbors.

As for wishful look back at Detroit? Good grief! That city was built for and by cars and is a disaster. I am glad that Seattle is starting to transition away from that plan.

As for thirty somethings wearing leotards... I'm well past that chronologically as is my dad and yet we both continue to ride bicycles. This man needs to get out more and exercise. He'd feel a lot better, reduce his stress and maybe enjoy life.

2nd Ave's bike lane is a death trap. Sorry, poorly designed and placed, no sane bicyclist would ride it it. And I'll give you more than a one fingered wave if you brush me in a car when I'm riding. There are multiple lanes, lots of stop lights, the time difference between a rider and a driver is maybe one light, maybe.

I understand the frustration of a large group of old people who have become soft and accustomed to driving around in fossil fuel burning cars. That age is coming quickly to an end. Until either a viable electric or hydrogen based fuel economy takes it's place, human powered will be stepping up to fill in some of the gaps.

And as it has been mentioned over on Purgola. The cool kids ride bikes. It's the future.

http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/01/on-the-wretchedness-of-a-culture-in-which-people-get-so-upset-about-bicycles/

Hold up there! Dean Locke was merely offering some gentle humor. "McSchwinn" How witty!

I know that many readers here are becoming (and proud of) being curmudgeons and they like to exaggerate being antique for a laugh. I have no doubt that the Dean was just joking.

And of course because the insufferable fop bicyclist is not required to have a license or other type of visible identifier he can ride along in anonymity with his foppish ways enjoying the bike lane (or not).

I agree entirely.

Ah, the quintessential Seattle editorial: the long-suffering motorist who has had just about ENOUGH!

How many articles and editorials just like this one have we read in the last year? You know, the ones denouncing "Mayor McSchwinn," rude bicyclists, young bicyclists, parking fees, bike lanes, expensive transit projects, environmentalists, ecologues, and so on.

The slightest change to transportation policy here elicits the most mournful and angry moans from automobile owners. However, these persecuted drivers never mention how expensive it is to build and maintain roads for cars, the deaths and injuries cars are responsible for every day, the asthma-, smog-, and global warming-causing pollution they emit, the sprawl they encourage, and the fact that oil is likely to get much more expensive in the near future. (Even drivers know, and even agree with, this laundry list--but, damnit, none of it should interfere with their God-given right to cheap, four-wheeled transportation.)

To Mr. Locke and the rest of the offended car class, feel free to wax nostalgic about the golden heyday of the automobile, and feel free to drive to the grocery store (where there is usually free parking), but it's only fair that parking fees might go up from time to time, especially when the city is struggling to fund the school system and other public goods. Think how much people who don't own cars have subsidized your chosen mode of transport over the years.

I think the subtitle would have more accurately read: The author, afflicted by exhaust-induced dementia, yells at cyclists to "get off my lawn".

This is neither funny nor accurate nor well-reasoned nor coherent nor productive. Crosscut - grow some editorial balls please. Enough of these gomer "emeriti" that can't write anything worth reading.

Oh, dear. I'm usually railing at people in my generation (and older) that it isn't the 1950s anymore, and etc., etc., and we have to plan for a different future. HOWEVER, that said, I think that Prof Locke's editorial piece here was (1) at least partly tongue-in-cheek (I particularly chuckled at the "thirtysomethings in leotards.")and (2) appropriately raised the question of how we provide mobility for all in a useful way.

Senior citizens with canes and young moms with sick toddlers may need something other than bus or bike to get around. Taxis are a possibility, but still not hail-able in this town. And, to be sure, lots of people still prefer to control their own vehicles .. thus the popularity of ZipCar!

Traveling down 12th Ave the other day, I found myself at least somewhat stymied at exactly how I was going to pass the bicyclist in the sharrow lane with 3' of clearance without encroaching the center turn lane and sending a completely mixed signal to all users of the right of way. My solution was to simply alter my route by a couple of blocks.

Let's be thoughtful here, and a little less reactive ... Hubert Locke has given an enormous amount to this community and is no knee-jerk right-winger.

There are many ways to enforce the superiority of automobiles over bicycles and one should daily and frequently do just that; put bicycles in their place. Or else, their riders will demand more special treatment without paying for it.

— dbreneman I thought bicycle users DID have to follow the same rules as autos. At least that was what I was taught when I was first allowed to ride a bicycle on city streets. Then again, some time ago, and another state.

Hubert, what is happening to our level of civil discourse that you, a citizen of high education, part of the creme de la creme of intellectual training, would stoop to such inaccurate, whiny, anger filled, borderline hate speech? As a writing exercise to help you improve, in your article substitute 'African-American' for cyclist and 'Hoopdie' for bicycle. Repeat with 'White', 'Gay', 'Jew', 'Catholic', "Atheist', etc, until you get the point.

Many of the errors in your article have already been corrected by other comments, but one glaring example is that on street parking space is paid for primarily from property taxes. Street parking rates are well below the private market rates, therefore, your parking is being subsidized by home owners, especially ones that do not own cars.

"Hubert, what is happening to our level of civil discourse that you, a citizen of high education, part of the creme de la creme of intellectual training, would stoop to such inaccurate, whiny, anger filled, borderline hate speech?"

He's following the lead of his peers engaged in Climate Change research.

Hubert, just read animalal's comment and you see the kind of hate-filled trash you are inspiring.

The tenor of some of the comments to Dean Locke’s article make me think that riding a bicycle is a religious experience for some rather than an exercise in transportation, and that by poking fun Dean Locke has committed a sacrilege akin to burning the Quran. To the zealots in leotards I say “lighten up.”

Humor and exaggeration are often very effective techniques for making a point, and, can be quite entertaining at the same time, as Dean Locke has once again demonstrated. Bravo to Crosscut for publishing his excellent article.

@ andy. Bicyclists don't pay any more for roads than a single mother with 2 kids and no car pay. There is no license requirement, either for the rider or for the bicycle. I ride a bike. I enjoy the benefits. But I pay no more for the "bike friendly enviroment" fostered by the City than a senior citizen living on Social Security that owns neither a bike or car.

fgruben, you have exactly proven my point! Almost all city street funding is from property and sales tax. Why should the entire city street system be devoted to automobiles when we are all paying for it--not just car owners.

FYI: I own two bikes, two cars, and two houses. I live and work in Seattle and commute 10 miles each way five days a week, about half the time in my car. I am well over the magical age of 45 and do not use a cane and am a bit overweight since I love bourbon. I NEVER wear spandex or leotards. I have a sense of humor as evidenced by this joke:

Two peanuts were walking down the street, and one of them was a-salted.

There's a danger in politics in crafting a lens which proceeds to distort one's view of the world. Such, I think, has become true of Seattle's mayor. Consider the statement in the second paragraph.

The proposal to increase city revenues from the pockets of those of us who drive cars might have some credibility if Hizzoner hadn’t established an early reputation for disliking any mode of transportation that requires more than two wheels and a lot of sweat.

It's telling. Seattle's budget situation is challenging, and we are left with relatively few options. The budget contains its share of cuts, and in many areas of the budget, such as police and fire protection, cuts are intolerable. Partly due to state policy, the city has limited options for revenue. What would you do differently?

Because of this trumped up "culture war" between drivers and bikers, the parking taxes get the lion's share of attention. Reading some of the coverage, one might think that the only added revenue in the budget comes from parking and autos. In fact, fees of all sorts are increasing. I am a cat lover, and it tugs at my heartstrings to think of taxing Fluffy with his wide, beady eyes and plaintive meow, but that is in the budget as well.

All this, by the way, comes from someone who is very critical of the mayor's position on the waterfront tunnel and road diets.

Hubert Locke's opinion piece is neither tongue-in-cheek satire nor manifesto. It's a blatant political attack sprinkled with bits of salty humor to entertain the most powerful political base of wealthy industrialists and automobile-related business interests who should be ashamed of their end product Revelation: Carmageddon.

Northwest ports expand to accommodate larger ships importing more cars that require more freeway expansion.

Link LRT earns rating of worst new start. SLU Streetcar won't improve dismal ridership with a Westlake terminus plaza. Trolleybuses are ideal hill-climbers but Seattle's system may be dismantled.

White Flight fled first to distant suburbs and in Detroit is followed with central city extermination like New Orleans during and after Katrina.

Professor Locke, meet Ivory Tower.

Thank you for speaking up for those of us "over a certain age" who can only be wage-earning members of society if we have access to a car. Arthritis has greatly reduced my ability to get around on foot, much less bicycle, but a car gets me the 7 miles to and from work (15 minutes each way most days) where a metro bus requires almost an hour each way - 30 minutes of each trip is spent waiting for a transfer bus. And also thank you for bringing up the lack of urban manners among cyclists, or even respect for the law. I watch cyclists run through red lights every day, which they justify because they "can't lose momentum"! I think a loss of momentum would be preferable to losing one's life.

McGinn, the fattest bicyclist to ever claim to bike everywhere, IS anti-car -- but really, parking rates are the first to be increased given such bad economic times.

You could also say he's a rich elitist, like most of these anti-car nuts in the Sierra Club & the bike agencies -- poor people who have to travel for midnight shifts or cross the metropolitan area for their minimum wage jobs are supposed to change their lives as easily as the latte drinking microsoft employees who can work any hours they want.

Elderly people who have to go to the doctor or shopping who can't ride a bike should just have the decency to die, because when they drive a car, they are evil.

The handicapped should just learn how to bike with their hands if they don't have legs, or use a biking eye dog or something else like that/ Otherwise they should just stay in their rooms 24 hours a day so bicyclists don't have to avoid them on the sidewalks.

(For the anti-car nuts who can't recognize this, it's sarcasm -- but nothing you haven't said on your Critical Mass law breaking rides)

Thank you, Bradley, for pointing out that this was an attempt at a "humor" piece. Indeed, it might be considered funny, at the WAC or the club or wherever the old boys hang out these days. Bravo, indeed! Pip pip! Hyperbole, I say. Positively Swiftian. It's Pimm's o'clock!

Save it for the alumni magazine.

I always laugh at the idea bicyclists don't pay taxes.

What we don't spend on cars, we spend on other things, and we pay taxes on it.

Out of fairness, why don't we start charging BIKES to park or require they have a permit to park? Often they block the sidewalks and make it hard for disabled people or the elderly to maneuver around them. Transportation is transportation. They have gotten to use the road for free for ages, now it is time they pay for their bike lanes & parking.

Hubert: You go, Gramps. The internal combustion crowd desperately need a Dan Bertholet of their own.

Andy: "Hate speech?" Seriously?

Right on, Hubert Locke! A woman of your generation, I'm lucky to be able, still, to ride my bike around town, and I love it. But my pedaling days are naturally numbered, and the cane is sure to replace the 2-wheeler I dote on right now. For those of us fortunate to live long enough the cane is a universal human destiny, no matter what mode of transport we use en route. Thank you for an op-ed that made me laugh.

Like the “paperless office,” complete integration of bicycles is going to happen over a long period of time. And even then capacity, safety and geography will determine what’s actually possible. Would you call 35 of your commuter buddies on Saturday morning to help you pick up a ton of beauty bark for your yard?

The problem is not applying appropriate transportation criteria, and not adequately funding a real system. Why force two incompatible modes into one space? Why not spend the money to make true, dedicated routes for bikes in areas where they make economic sense, rather than painting illogical, dangerous sharing schemes onto streets? What if we took the 200 million dollars spent beautifying Mercer for Vulcan, and spent it on a real bikeway system? Or took the billion plus dollars we’re spending on a waterfront park and creating a regional system that sets an example for the rest of the planet? That’s the way to put Seattle on the map.

All that really is possible. Just have to do it.

I don't understand how Fluffy's eyes can be both wide AND beady.

Mannix, I was just trying to be funny with the hate speech thing, considering Hubert is African -American (at least that is what google tells me). I guess hate speech humor is a little advanced for auto-nazis!

BTW, My back is acting up, so I am actively cane-shopping.

It is strange that no matter how often the true financing of city streets is pointed out, auto-nazis seem to think that all city streets should be dedicated entirely to the automobile, because they pay for it. Why is this? Do their brains get physically altered when they get their auto-nazi credentials?

Well, at least is is almost PIMM'S cup time, although I wish they still made #5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimm%27s

"the true financing of city streets" is never pointed out. Just the fantasy that streets are financed by property and sales taxes.

From just parking fees, parking fines and the commercial parking tax, the city of Seattle collects around $75 million per year. The City gets more millions from the state gas tax. Why don't you show us were you find that property taxes and sales taxes are specifically dedicated to streets?

I think this is a great column, and I fully agree with it.

Lincoln, Publicola did a good job of ferreting out the details:

http://www.publicola.net/2010/08/31/we-all-pay-for-the-roads/

Also Lincoln, the city streets are property that we all own--no one ever paid for them, they are the peoples land (admittedly stolen from the First Nation's peoples). Why should this valuable property--28% of Seattle's land, be entirely dedicated to the automobile?

Great piece, Hubert! OK, a little cranky, yes, but still fun. The legit comment behind the kind and grandfatherly grouchiness that is so Hubert is, "What happens to elders who need vehicles to make it around town and be part of our community life?" It's a legit question that shouldn't be tossed out because Hubert actually likes cars.

Anyway, thanks for a fun piece and for speaking your mind, Dean Locke.

Arguably a city like Vancouver BC is much better suited to the elderly. Walkable, bike-able, with top notch public transport and mixed use, "old style" neighborhoods with corner stores, etc. Vancouver is much farther along the path of de-emphasizing auto traffic than Seattle.

Many elderly are beyond the point of safely operating an automobile. What will they do if we put all our transportation dollars into auto travel?

It sounds like brother Locke's ear horn may be a little clogged, but I agree wholeheartedly! The car users of Seattle should deliver a stern message to Mayor McSchwinn by simply leaving their driver side car doors open when parked adjacent to these elitist econazi lanes, thus rendering them useless!

Dean Hubert's piece suggests that 'share the road' should work both ways. As a 20+ year city dweller, traversing city streets is problematic whether on a bicycle, motor cycle, in a car or truck or walking or jogging. Sharing the road comes from being courteous and we could use more of that all the way around. Paying for the road, as motorists do with gas taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls, suggests that cyclists should and could share the load. Fee-based registration of bicycles will help defer costs and elminate the anonimity that many cyclists (not all of course) enjoy as they willfully ignore rules of the road.

Andy - Vancouver BC is a lot FLATTER than Seattle, too. Call me when you are over 65, have arthritis in both knees and hips and we'll talk. You will get old, you know.

boeingbabe, it is a date! You don't have too long to wait. Also, they do make nice electric assist bikes now.

bayshore, here is the breakdown of SDOT street financing:

Grants & Other: $96.9 (29 percent)
Debt: $77.4 (23 percent)
Bridging the Gap (a property-tax levy passed by voters in 2007): $60.9 (18 percent)
General Fund: $42.3 (12 percent)
Reimbursables: $42 (12 percent)
Gas Tax: $13.4 (4 percent)
Cumulative Reserve Fund: $7.6 (2 percent)

I feel like I do already share the costs, especially since I also own cars (as most cyclists do). What is this anonymity you talk about? I know cyclists that have been cited by the police for running stop signs and you need to have your id ready....

I'm giving you an A+ for grammar and sentence structure and a C- for thought-process. I own a car and use a bicycle as much as possible for commuting, errands, and recreation. I believe when people pose an argument they should also weigh the alternatives.

Would you prefer to sit in traffic behind my car, which will definitely be in your way? When I use my bicycle, you likely don't appreciate the absence of my car sitting in front of you on the road. IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY CYCLING, WAIT'LL YOU SEE MY DRIVING! Thank you for helping me develop my new slogan.

After sitting behind my car honking at me, I probably won't give you the finger, but will go extra slow in your honor, grinning as I watch you go all apoplectic in my rear-view mirror. Then you can write a letter-to-the-editor about that.

I am one of the cyclists who prefers to stay away from cars wherever possible, but sometimes there are no safe alternatives.

I'm pretty sure Second Ave. which you mentioned, has a bike lane on the left side, in the door zone, which many also call the Death Zone. For whatever reasons this bike lane was put on the left, it is considered dangerous by most users. I also believe the lights on Second Ave. are timed for bicycle speed. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Assuming I'm correct, an experienced bicycle commuter wouldn't be slowing you down unless you think exceeding the speed limit is within your rights.

Unlike the cyclist you mentioned, I try not to give the finger to belligerent drivers. When someone is threatening to kill me with their car, I'm not always pleasant and accommodating, though I know I should be. But that's just me.

It is obvious people don’t understand the purpose of a city. Believe it or not, it is not a setting for lifestyle choices and outdoor dining. I like those aspects of our city as much as the next guy, and they certainly contribute to the attraction of living here, but they are only a byproduct of the economic activity generated by people who work and live here.

The city is meant to be an economic engine for commerce, and mobility is a big part of that job. Every time you squeeze down a street, or add complications for moving goods and people around in the city, you are biting the very hand that makes it possible for you to sip lattes outside the bike repair shop.

The mayor policy proposals make it clear he is more interested in lifestyle than in creating a friendly environment for people to actually live and work here.

Keep Seattle moving!

Craig, "Mobility" is not the same as "auto mobility". I'm as fast on my bicycle commuting to the park and ride from downtown as the bus. From there, my car beats the bicycle but I'm healthier by skipping the drive. And on my bicycle I take up far less space than a car does. On city streets I'm almost as fast as the cars around me. We all seem to end up at the same lights.

Making on street parking more expensive is one way to increase mobility because it keeps more spaces open for those who need only a fast stop to pick up or drop something off.

Oh, in Portland you can call 35 of your buddies to help you move!

http://www.streetfilms.org/bike-move/

With the right bike you can carry a lot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=AQQP86ts9T8

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=dKF8-RyQn94

Bikes... they aren't just for fun anymore.

of 'course there are those crazy danes...no cars just a bicycle.

http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagen-cargo-bikes/#more-48273

It may be that McGinn has an anti-auto bias. It would certainly be consistent with his Sierra Club background and the green and sustainable philosophy this city has taken the lead in. But as Dean Locke implies, it seems whoever is writing these proposals is young and active and they sometimes forget who inadvertently pays the price of those efforts.

If the point is to discourage driving by raising parking fees/taxes then it is similar to what we are typically do with tobacco and alcohol. Taxing our "sins" is a long held tactic during tough times when governments are scrambling to find funding sources. However taxing smokers and drinkers are one thing. Taxing all drivers is different and this piece points out a big flaw in this scheme. Does this tax/fee hike unfairly burden the elderly, handicapped and families who often have no choice but to drive to get to services or health care?

There can be no better proof of what a bunch of self-righteous humorless prigs most (though certainly not all) bicycle advocates are than the responses posted here. Thanks for making Dean Locke's point for him....

I'm always amazed at older civic leaders that cannot envision a better future for the next generation. This editorial for the status quo is shameful.

No one pays the actual cost of driving; it's subsidized on every level so be happy. It's time to take a cue from the federal DOT and start shifting our transportation dollars away from infrastructure for cars and toward infrastructure for transit.

Locke sense of humor aside, (I personally didn't find it funny [nor offensive] until I reread the title, then I got the humor) I think one of Locke's fundamental assertions is wrong. Locke states, "This assault on those of us who persist in the ecologically incorrect practice of driving cars apparently assumes that city residents are all as fit as Lance Armstrong who could easily get around town on two-wheelers or public transportation, if we could be duly dissuaded from depending on gasoline-guzzling, air-polluting vehicles." I don't think many people (or greenies) assert that no one should ever drive, but rather people should consider the consequences, notably environmental, that their driving incurs. Many people drive when transit, biking, or walking would be convenient simply out of habit or due to a cognitive dissonance between there beliefs (in global warming) and their actions. This choice, for good reason, bothers many who take global warming rather seriously.

I also think that a lot of the animosity that is associated with road diets, meter increases and the tunnel debate comes from both sides. As much as roadies feel that greenies don't respect people's individual (or business) needs, greenies feel that roadies get preposterously worked up over small changes in road infrastructure and don't acknowledge the hazards of auto dependency (as a society).

I respect the fact that it is inconvenient to say the least to get around Seattle without a car. With that being said it is important that the infrastructural choices we make promote denser living spaces so that we can accommodate the future growth in this region without sprawling out even further and making auto congestion even more of a nightmare. Thus, whether you hate cars or love them and whether you are or aren't willing to sacrifice the convenience of driving for the environment (or reducing are foreign oil dependency) it is incredibly important that the debate over transportation infrastructure centers around creating a city and region that can accommodate the massive amounts of new citizens without creating a massive bog of urban and suburban sprawl, not simply over the auto capacity or projected travel times of the new projects.

And on a side note there is a bit too much hate coming from both sides of this debate. I am of the opinion that crosscut works best when comments provide constructive criticism, and civil commentary and debate on both the specifics as well as the general topics of the article. This ought to be place where ideas are shared between peers, not enemies.

Ted Van Dyke is *so* jealous of all the attention Hubert G. Locke is getting right now. Can anyone say, "Cage match?!" Canes as bludgeoning instruments both allowed and encouraged, of course.

ba, Ted and Hubert might have to be on the same team... perhaps a tag team match.

They could go up against Knute and Anthony. Canes against REI vintage snowshoe and crucifix? PIMM's Royal served all around. Hold the match in one of those new green painted bike boxes on Pike Street.

boeingbabe - having lived in both Vancouver and Seattle I'm not following the idea that one is "flatter" than the other ... depends on what part of town you are in?

The primary difference may be that Vancouver is in Canada, where things like health care and public transportation are afforded a different priority.

Being a walker in our fair city I haven't much nice to say about car drivers or bike riders, sort of equally dangerous and insensitive to those of us who enjoy bipedal transport.

I wonder what will happen to this debate when the majority of autos are electric or fuel-celled and the environmental costs of driving an automobile are greatly reduced. Will we need more or less road capacity? Where does the titanium and rubber in bicycles come from anyway (Not to mention the components in the computers that write in to Crosscut)? Isn't the plastic in bicycle helmets and the spandex in shorts a product of petroleum? Moral purity is a tough thing to come by in the modern world.

Andy, how about we put out a call for a some willing volunteers to dress up as the combatants and have a little match? Yes, in the bike box of course, and live blogged, naturally. And we'll need FakeKnute, FakeAnthony, and FakeHubert twitter feeds (along with FakeTedVanDyk) so they can talk smack to each other leading up to the brawl.

ba, Excellent idea!

Just when I start to sympathize (even more than I do already) with people who don't want an all-car society, one of those people says something like this: "With that being said it is important that the infrastructural choices we make promote denser living spaces so that we can accommodate the future growth in this region without sprawling out even further and making auto congestion even more of a nightmare" and my eyes just glaze over.

For god's sake, if you want to influence people, don't use oatmealy phrases like "infrastructual choices" and "denser living spaces". That stuff is why Republicans win elections.

You might think a man with all those impressive (albeit aged) titles would think a little about the context before passing judgment. Raising parking fees is known to reduce congestion, a known problem in Seattle, and to raise revenue, another known problem. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Is Locke alarmed, or just angry? He might be alarmed at proposals to do away with automobile traffic in Seattle- if any such proposals had ever been made. Maybe he feels that spending any money on bikes or walkers will eventually make it impossible to drive. What with AGW and the foreign source of our fuel, I don't think we'll have to wait that long.

On the "just angry" side we have the perennial complaint about the scofflaw bicyclists. Because running a red light on a bicycle is just the same as running a light with a truck or car. Honestly, with all the stuff that goes on in Seattle, you're worried that cyclists may run red lights? That reminds me of the days when the SPD focused on jaywalkers. In those days, prostitutes had storefronts, and gay bars paid blackmail to the police to stay open, but woe unto you if you jaywalked in Seattle!

In a better world, a former resident of Detroit might be asking how a city so favored by fortune could have fallen so low. Located astride an important land-bridge route and an important waterway, Detroit was further favored by a productive hinterland that as early as the 1880s was producing regular surpluses of highly qualified manufacturing workers and quality manufacturing goods. If you've read the history of Michigan before the automobile, it will be no mystery as to why cars were built in Detroit. So, what happened? Why didn't other businesses take the place of the fading automobile industry? If ever there were a case for a diligent investigation of how 'public affairs' were carried out, this is surely it.

Please be assured, Mr. Locke, that you are just as entitled to use the streets as a cyclist or pedestrian- which is to say, not at all, for about a half of them, and at the risk of your life, when it comes to the rest. What you're really asking for is a sort of privilege you buy by buying a car or truck. What you mean is that you want to be more than equal, able, in fact, to squash a bike rider or a pedestrian like a bug if you have a senior moment and don't watch your mirrors.

Is the city required to maintain the mobility of the halt and the lame? In a sense, yes, and the transit system provides vans for those who need them. But we don't provide cars to those who need, but cannot afford, them.

Do we need "to treat cars as mechanical demons from an environmentally profligate past"? Maybe so, when we consider how far our century of car-buying has taken us from reality. A quarter of the city off the tax rolls, and the remaining land paying taxes to maintain those roads- it's no scheme for prosperity. Add an electorate that can't even read their tax bill and learn how much they're spending for roads, agitate briskly with cries that bicyclists are "taking away my right to drive" and you'll be ready to argue with Mike McGinn.

Damn, I'm so old I can remember when driving was "a privilege, not a right".

— bkochis writes: "I wonder what will happen to this debate when the majority of autos are electric or fuel-celled and the environmental costs of driving an automobile are greatly reduced."

That's a myth. Where will all the electricity come from? Coal-fired and nuclear power plants. I hope I don't need to explain the environmental costs of each of these.

Electricity is NOT an energy source. It's an energy delivery system. To make the electricity it still needs to be converted from something else. They can also make electricity by burning diesel fuel. I suppose you can hope for solar powered cars.

Conservation can have a huge impact right now, today. I own a car, but it's parked down the street most of the time. I use it for trips to Costco.

Please share this fact with your friends.

I was a student at the UW school of public affair while Dr. Locke was dean of the college. As an alum, I can't be more disappointed by hate-mongering tone of his article. Most cyclists, myself included, by and large follow the rules of the road. Moreover, I am as annoyed as anyone by the conspicuous minority that boorishly flaunt traffic laws. Rest assured, bad cyclists pose as big a hazzard to other cyclists as they do to automobiles. One of them gave me a bloody knee once.

Hubert Locke should know better than to condemn an entire class of people by the actions of a few. I'm grading this article a paltry 2.7, and suggest a rewrite.

1. Crosscut is normally a cut above so much humorless attack the messenger and display superiority. When faced with humor please consider that you might be dealing with a Modest Proposal. I can not tell you off the top of my head the most effective response to that, but I am sure that there is one.

2. Whenever the Ivory Tower speaks like the rest of us, we need to applaud and encourage it, not make light of it and waste time looking for or re-implanting the hidden meanings buried in the usual gibberish that passes for elite thought, e.g., Sarah takes some to task several comments back.

3. Please, Hubert, apply your clear and experienced thought to the impacts the suspiciously tax-like utility increases will have on people of increasingly modest means who supposedly will continue to need, want, or have a right to live in the fair city of Seattle.

When you do not completely depend on click through numbers and eyeball counts stories like these are thankfully infrequent.

Before autos were the problem there were the trolleys.
The abstract does not mention it but the cyclist was speeding. The editorial was requesting that speeders on bicycles should be stopped by police (also on bikes, as to be able to catch them). Enough stops would discourage cyclists from speeding. 112 years later I see the same complaints to the "new" mode of transportation.

Find more documents like this:
Document types:
editorial_ article
Publication title:
New York Times (1857 -1922)

THE BICYCLE DANGER.
New York Times (1857-1922). New York, N.Y.: Oct 16, 1898. pg. 12, 1 pgs
Abstract (Summary)
Over in New Jersey on Friday an elderly clergyman on his charitable rounds in trying to escape a bicyclist got in the way of a trolley car and was seriously, probably fatally, injured. This is an example of the dangers to which pedestrians and, for that matter, cyclists also, are exposed in the more crowded city streets.

Prof. Locke is a fine man. His piece attributes motives to Mayor McGinn that are mere guesses and probably false. That's OK, the piece was fun.

Mayor McGinn has proposed quite reasonable incrases in parking meter rates and span. I would guess his motivations are sincere and related to economics and the city budget. Revenue is often necessary to do the public good.

Drivers, Prof. Locke included, will often be better off if the Council enacts the parking meter proposals. Today, city-managed curb space is under priced. SDOT relies on the sound analysis of Prof. Donald Shoup and of data collection on parking utilization and turnover. The aim could be to have about 85 percent occupancy so that drivers may find a space available.

The parking meter proposal is not closely correlated with cycling. In economics, Prof. Locke may have encountered the tradegy of the commons whereby a commonly held resource is not priced correctly and over used; this is the case with parallel parking.

The mayor's transport iniative is called walk-bike-ride and is aimed at improving all three modes. So, Prof. Locke, as pedestrian and transit rider is a target for city funded improvements. As we age, more of us will be using canes; I hope we have sidewalks on the major arterials of north Seattle soon. Seattle is improving transit significantly and will do more, if provided the revenue.

It would be perfectly acceptable for Rep. Eddy as a motorist to pass a cyclist by using the turn lane for a few feet. Note that SDOT uses a huge amount of its curb space for parallel parking.

McSwhinn is not original to Locke; it has appeared in the blogs for many months.

The NYT has reported a growing bicycle culture in Detroit.

bicycle culture is quite varied. the spandex set on light road bikes is the fastest riding crowd. the fastest growing segment may be wearing regular clothes and travel on neighborhood streets with all the trip purposes that cars are used for: commuting, shopping, and leisure. the hipsters and the poor are other notable segments. check out the Pedaling Revolution by Jeff Mapes of Portland. Look for the culture war to be over when the portion of cycling women and children is higher. There are many practicle cyclists shopping in Ballard, Greenwood, the U District, and Capitol Hill. Portland, a flatter city, may have a larger cycling presence. Parking is cheap there.

Man, this is getting pretty old. Can we go back to talking about fixing up the viaduct instead of digging a tunnel?

Lincoln, wherefore art thou, Lincoln? You called me out about: '"the true financing of city streets" is never pointed out. Just the fantasy that streets are financed by property and sales taxes.'

I gave you the facts to support my statement, but now your silence is deafening...

Also, it is high-larious when you free-market, tea partiers start grousing about losing your parking and street subsidy. You must admit we currently have a socialist parking and city street system. That is, it is not in the private sector and it is paid for primarily by general taxes, not user fees--SOCIALIST, I said!

You must feel like the guy, cruising the beach looking for girls, spies a beautiful tall blond. She turns around and to your shock, she is MAN with a long mullet and big mustache! It must give you a funny feeling in your stomach to be advocating a socialist parking system!

People are not fathoming that oil supply has reached peak production in this country and demand is rapidly increasing in other parts of the world. Oil prices have no where to go but up and according to Canadian energy economist Jeff Rubin, we will be seeing triple digit oil prices again within the next 24 months.

It is a fact of life that for both economic and environmental reasons, we must change our relationship to transit. So, get used to measures designed to improve alternative means of transport and get used to the idea that your use of the car could become quite sparing in the coming years. It isn't big bad evil government doing this to you, it's just the way life is and the result of 150 years of our massive orgy on petroleum.

You'll have to reconsider if living in a far flung suburb continues to make economic sense or if making the choice to move into a more urban and dense community with walkable neighborhoods and excellent access to transit would be an improvement in the quality of life over your solitary existence in suburbia.

If you own a car and a bike are you getting more lanes for your tax contribution than just owning a car or just a bike?

18% of the general fund comes from B&O; taxes (just ahead of the sales tax at 16%), let's try not to kill the good while attempting to retrieve more golden eggs.

Mr Baker, it more a question of how much of the road and how often you use it, as well as wear and tear. Also, we should include sidewalks in this equation as well. It is a difficult calculation, but I would estimate over 80% of the system is dedicated to auto traffic and storage. So, if you own and ride a bike and a car, you are getting less for your money than a car only citizen, since you are using less of the road and causing less wear and tear over time. Currently, bike only people are not getting much for their money.

So next time that Hummer driver speeds past the cyclist, he should shout "thanks for subsidizing my sorry ass, sucker!"

No, i know the question I asked. Having a utilization discussion will not actually help you.

If "I am taxed on my car, so I shouldn't be taxed on my bicycle" is valid argument, then why isn't "I am taxed on the car that I regularly use, so I shouldn't be taxed on my hobby car that spends most of its life in the garage"?

I have a bicycle that costs more than my "project" car. My bicycle spends more time on the road than my project car. However, more tax is collected on my project car.

Bicyclists that use the road should directly contribute to the funding of the roads. Just like my project car that won't see a road for years.

Andy quoting Publicola for anything but gossip is a dangerous venture. The whole "I pay my fair share of taxes so a bike license would be unfair" argument sounds a lot like "I don't have kids so why do I need to pay so much for schools". It sounds like a teabagger argument in spandex clothing.

But since you are so in love with the 2010 SDOT revenues perhaps you should look a little further into where the funds come from. It needs to be noted that 2010 is unusual because of the short term Bridging the Gap program. Of the $60 million BTG funds $24 million comes from parking taxes. The grants from the feds comes from the FTA which gets the bulk of its funding from gas taxes and other vehicle related fees. Look closely at the various funding sources and many seem to be directly related to car usage.

In addition, properties whose land has been designated for roadway and parking pay higher taxes than properties that have no paved parking or have parking that is in lower demand.

Car fees for parking and tickets produce around $50 million to the general fund. The general fund contributes about $38 million to SDOT. It would appear that the entire amount really comes from those vehicles related sources.

The other side of the budget also produces some interesting items. The so-called Mobility Budget(bike lanes, paths, sidewalks)has well over $50 million for capital and maintenance in 2010. Check it out, there are many expenditures that have little or nothing to do with driving a car.

Everyone needs the roads for trucks. Buses need the roads. Buses, trucks, utilities and weather do almost all the damage to roads. Roads built to handle the weight of trucks and buses are not worn out by cars. By your logic that bikes don't wear out streets, all costs should be born by trucks and buses.

Your last point that there is no reason to license bikes because "I know cyclists that have been cited by the police for running stop signs and you need to have your id ready...." is absurd. There are other reasons to license bikes. First bikers should want the legitimacy of being licensed. Also, we have red light cameras in Seattle. They take pictures of the license plate. Bicycles are known to run these very lights. Bicycles can't be cited for a red light camera violation because - drum roll - they don't have a license. I had a friend run down by a hit and run biker, breaking his collarbone, and there was no way to identify him.

I think bikes should be registered if for no other reason in helping defray the cost of their recovery in the event they are stolen. Some form of indelible registration marking on the bike with a city registry will assist the police in reuniting your bike with you and prevent trafficking in stolen bikes.

Long live Hubert Locke !

jas, my evil plot has succeeded! I have you tasseled-loafer wearing, anti-bike, hummer-nazis actually talking about facts now, not just the 'Cyclists don't pay for roads' BS.

So you threw out a lot of numbers there... what percentage of the city street system is paid for entirely by auto users? 100%, 80%, 75%, 50%, 25% ? You seem to be a math whiz, so give us a number.

Also, if you read my comments, I never said I was against cyclist licensing. I just implied it should not be viewed as a new source of money so that 'cyclists pay for the roads'. Cyclists already pay for more than their share of the roads.

p.s. patroclus, I believe cyclists can already register their bikes with the Seattle police in the manner you describe.

Re parking prices: The reason that parking is difficult to find is not that prices are too low. The reason is (why is this so difficult to figure out?): there are more people in Seattle now. Duh.

So raising parking prices will have only one definite outcome: only those who can afford the higher prices will try for parking places. We'll be eliminating parking for a socioeconomic class. But then they don't contribute to City life anyway, so I guess that's OK.

sarah, how about people who cannot afford a car? These people are paying sales and other taxes to build and maintain auto infrastructure that they will not be able to use.

Sorry, but I am 100% against licensing bicycles and bicyclists. As for using traffic cameras to catch red light running bicyclists, and cars for that matter, I'm 100% against them too. You can beat any of those "tickets" merely by showing up in court and challenging the "evidence". (the photos are not valid because no person took them and can testify to their validity.) So more police state cameras are flat out.

Sorry that you get mad when you see others break the law. You can read about mass law breaking in any copy of the Seattle Times, where today you can see that the BofA admits that there were "errors" in processing foreclosures. Errors which actually violate numerous state laws for transfer of titles, sales of Mortgage Backed Securities which in fact had no valid mortgages as part of them. So my guess is that folks mad about bicyclists are equally mad about their neighbors having their houses stolen from them, their pensions ripped off etc. Fix this climate of theft and I'll talk to you rationally about penalties for red light and stop sign running bicyclists.

Sarah, poor people are already scr*wed by driving a car into Seattle to shop. Street parking is still less than off street parking, and if the rates are high enough, there will be some, which right now there is not. And it's the social services which the poor need that comes from the increased parking fees. I don't see a loss here for them.

Also, it should be pointed out that 99% of auto drivers break the law every time they drive. It is called 'speeding'. Try going the speed limit next time you drive a car.... you will get honked and yelled at. Go the posted 20 mph through a school zone--the auto-nazis do not like that at all and they will tail gate and honk at you big time. What is the leading cause of death for young children? Auto accidents.

Andy, you don't really want to discuss this, you really just want to repeat your mantra "Cyclists already pay for more than their share of the roads."

You refuse to acknowledge that the streets serve everyone by providing the means for trucks to deliver goods and services. You refuse to acknowledge that buses need the streets and that most wear by vehicles is done by trucks and buses. You continue to argue that people should be able to measure if taxes are fair by how much they use a government provided good. Once again, this is a tea-bagger argument against public education, health care and general safety net programs.

You make the argument that lower income people can't afford cars and therefore ride bikes and take public transportation. If this is true, then they pay less per capita in sales and property. If non-car owners make up 20% of the taxpayers, even if they paid the same per capita taxes, they would not make up for the direct taxes payed by car owners. The total SDOT revenues for 2010 are about $300 million. Car fees directly paid to SDOT amount to well over $30 million dollars. The funds from the general fund of $38 million are covered by the parking fees and fines plus the ticket revenue from car owners. As you have pointed out, cars are costly and the sales taxes paid for purchase, upkeep, accessories and other car related purchases increase the general fund by millions.

The SDOT budget has many items in it that have little or nothing to do with cars or their use of streets. Maintenance for paths are $6 million and sidewalks $2 million, while the budget for new paths is $7 million and for sidewalks it's $5 million. Neighborhood "enhancements" is priced at $5.5 million. Tree and landscape comes in at $4.5 million, and as we all know car drivers never take the time to smell the roses.

So Andy, it's pretty clear that taxes paid by car drivers exceed their "share" of the SDOT budget and that they subsidize not only the SDOT budget but the general fund.

Here's the link to the SDOT budget: http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/10adoptedbudget/UTILITIES_AND_TRANSPORTATION.pdf

Andy, you don't really want to discuss this, you really just want to repeat your mantra "Cyclists already pay for more than their share of the roads."

You refuse to acknowledge that the streets serve everyone by providing the means for trucks to deliver goods and services. You refuse to acknowledge that buses need the streets and that most wear by vehicles is done by trucks and buses. You continue to argue that people should be able to measure if taxes are fair by how much they use a government provided good. Once again, this is a tea-bagger argument against public education, health care and general safety net programs.

You make the argument that lower income people can't afford cars and therefore ride bikes and take public transportation. If this is true, then they pay less per capita in sales and property. If non-car owners make up 20% of the taxpayers, even if they paid the same per capita taxes, they would not make up for the direct taxes payed by car owners. The total SDOT revenues for 2010 are about $300 million. Car fees directly paid to SDOT amount to well over $30 million dollars. The funds from the general fund of $38 million are covered by the parking fees and fines plus the ticket revenue from car owners. As you have pointed out, cars are costly and the sales taxes paid for purchase, upkeep, accessories and other car related purchases increase the general fund by millions.

The SDOT budget has many items in it that have little or nothing to do with cars or their use of streets. Maintenance for paths are $6 million and sidewalks $2 million, while the budget for new paths is $7 million and for sidewalks it's $5 million. Neighborhood "enhancements" is priced at $5.5 million. Tree and landscape comes in at $4.5 million, and as we all know car drivers never take the time to smell the roses.

So Andy, it's pretty clear that taxes paid by car drivers exceed their "share" of the SDOT budget and that they subsidize not only the SDOT budget but the general fund.

Here's the link to the SDOT budget: http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/10adoptedbudget/UTILITIES_AND_TRANSPORTATION.pdf

Gary, poor people generally don't drive into Seattle to shop. They drive into Seattle to work, because they live far out of Seattle and they often work off hours (for instance, hotel workers), so taking buses aren't practical, nor are bikes. Those are the people who will be hurt by increased parking fees (which include, as far as I've read, higher taxes on garage and lot parking).

Jas, I obviously do want to discuss this (probably too much)!

I freely acknowledge those point in your first paragraph. I don't remember being asked those things.

Your point about poor people is a bit strange. Are you proposing they pay the same per captia tax as as rich people? This would exceed their income.

So, using your numbers the SDOT budget is ~300 million, auto revenues are $68 million, plus we'll throw in another ~$80 mil to cover fed and state grants (gas tax) and some auto related sales tax (although . So auto users pay about 50% of the SDOT budget (I am being generous here).

Looks like your non-auto expenditures are about $30 million. Lets knock off some for the bus and truck wear and tear how about $50 mill? Looks like there is about a $70 million yearly subsidy for auto only users, right?

Part of the American Dream is freedom. The Detroit auto industry provided a time in American lives that personified freedom: freedom of choice, freedom to be who you are, to rebel, freedom of travel - to travel on a whim, or on a schedule. Millions and millions of Americans fell in love for the first time with a car: the symbol of personal freedom unlike anything before.

A bicycle is freedom too, but far too limiting, and not suitable for a family or a group intent on a road trip to remember forever. Being inside a car, inside the 4 walls, with a group of people, is an experience unlike any other. Without Detroit and the love of our lives: the auto, would we have be able to achieve a walk on the moon? Would rock and roll have happened? How about the end of the Cold War?

Don't knock the automobile, for without a rebirth in acceptance and love of our cars (perhaps electric, perhaps fueled on just air), we are stuck. Stuck stuck stuck.

I enjoyed this article, and particularly these paragraphs:

"Today, Detroit is a tragic relic of the Industrial Era — a painful symbol of a bygone age when the automobile was the technological marvel of the age. But it was also a technology that, for hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers like my father, who worked for32 years in Ford Motor’s steel mills, provided the economic ladder to a good life — home ownership, college for his three kids, a cottage on the lake in retirement."

Yep. Detroit made our lives possible. And look at today. What exactly are Microsoft, Google, Amazon and the others doing for our lives? Is technology giving us more freedom and creativity than the automobile? I think not.

It never ceases to amaze me what a lightning rod the bike/car issue is. I bike and I drive. I don't generally have problems with cars or bikes when I do. I support making biking much safer and easier, but people on both sides of the issue need to quit whining and villainizing each other.

Andy - your point has been that bikers subsidize car drivers. To the extent that cars add costs to the street system they more than pay for that added cost. Since 80% or more households have cars their property taxes and sales taxes also go to the SDOT budget. If car owning household have higher taxes because they are better off that means they pay even more of the sales and property tax than 80%.

If you don't ever ride in a personal vehicle, you still get value out of the streets. Obviously we all need streets to bring goods to our stores, restaurants, etc. If you use the bus, you need to have streets. As I have pointed out above, buses and trucks are the vehicles that determine the quality of streets and cause almost all the damage not done by weather and utility work.

What you miss is that everyone pays sales and property tax. If car households pay $100 million to SDOT and the other $200 million comes from everybody, then the non car households, if equally well off, would pay $40 million and I would argue that they get that value for the uses I mentioned above and the direct benefits such as bike and general paths.

Car owners need not pay all of SDOT's budget to not be subsidized by non-car households.

Mr. Locke concludes his piece with a call for a more rational dialogue in the interest of environmentally sustainable policies for the City of Seattle: "the serious conversation we all have to be engaged in, regarding an environmentally sensitive future." He apparently finds that the mayor's policies to expand the number of bicycle lanes and to increase parking fees are not a part of this "serious conversation," but Mr. Locke's reasoning is not clearly spelled out. One might think that making bicycling a bit safer and driving a bit more expensive would be exactly the kind of incremental policy adjustments that a "serious" policy maker would consider implementing in the interest of reducing pollution and consumption of fossil fuels, as well as increasing public health.

Mr. Locke chooses not to engage the merits of these policies, or to suggest any alternatives as a part of his contribution to the "serious conversation." Instead, he dismisses them based on the imputation of bad motives to the mayor; the policies "might have some credibility if Hizzoner hadn’t established an early reputation for disliking any mode of transportation that requires more than two wheels and a lot of sweat." Because Mr. Locke offers no evidence for this supposed "dislike," other than the policies themselves, which he opposes because they are motivated by dislike, this appears to be nothing more than circular reasoning and a smear. Furthermore, it's hard to understand why the motives of the person implementing a policy should matter, if we are having a "serious conversation" about their merits.

Having thus established that the mayor has bad motives, Mr. Locke proceeds to describe the policies in militant terms: the mayor's agenda is an "assault," an "anti-car crusade," that has "taken aim" on a "long-standing right" which must not be allowed "without incurring a good fight in the process!" Humorous hyperbole? Maybe, but as humor it's pretty feeble and hardly advances the "serious conversation."

As someone who gets on a bicycle every morning simply to get to work, what I found not merely silly but offensive about Mr. Locke's piece was its utterly crude construction of a demeaning stereotype: the bicyclist as arrogant, law-breaking, preening and egotistical, the "insufferable fop" of Mr. Locke's anecdote. I wouldn't call it hate speech, but to dismiss a policy based on the supposedly undeserving nature of its stereotyped beneficiaries smacks of "welfare queen." Similarly, the opposition of "insufferable fops" and "thirtysomethings in leotards" against respectable retirees like Mr. Locke who require a cane for mobility is a classic strategy of marginalization: the exotic "other" against the "real Americans." If that wasn't enough, Mr. Locke even invokes a nostalgically-remembered past: cars, Detroit, economic security, upward mobility, as against "a younger crowd that lacks appreciation for anything that can’t be held in one’s palm or stuck in one’s ear." In Mr. Locke's mind, somehow, pro-bicycle policies are cause and symptom of the ills of modern life and the gulf that separates him from younger generations.

Smears, stereotypes, and invective passing as "humor." Was this "the serious conversation we all have to be engaged in, regarding a more environmentally sensitive future"? Come again? My hearing aid must be low on batteries.

About Hubert G Locke

“ANTI AUTOMOBILE!” - the voice of the auto industry brain-washed. The car industry has spent billions distracting us from the fact that cars are heavy, dangerous, expensive machines, which hold several gallons of flammable liquid, and are highly destructive in many ways. The hidden costs of this car-centric culture are enormous, and Mr. Locke could find more deserving things as the object of his reverence.

People like Locke see cars as a personal safety, refuge and comfort zone (air conditioning, navagation, t.v.s and a six-speaker sound system). Our vehicle to freedom and mobility (ad’s showing a single car breezing along alone). Our status, our personal avatar (mine looks like an angry shark). It’s no wonder people feel safer in automobiles than airplanes – all delusion. How much of our income goes to cars, and how little most of us know about them. The car was a technological marvel 100 years ago, and the gasoline engine – if not the concept of a personal vehicle - must go.

HE WANTS TO RAISE PARKING RATES! When Mr. Locke calls on the owners of private parking garages to lower their rates to help the downtown merchants, then I’ll be concerned about the street fees.

RUDE BICYCLISTS! Hey, just gun it and run them down and teach them a lesson, Locke. They weigh 200 pounds tops and you weigh nearly a ton.

Keep being anti automobile, Mr. Mayor – it’s the right thing to do.

Referring to my post, Sarah said, "For god's sake, if you want to influence people, don't use oatmealy phrases like "infrastructual choices" and "denser living spaces". Although I am not a democratic politician, your comment is right on the money. I should have said: we can't keep wasting our money on outdated transportation systems that promote sprawl. Instead, we must spend it on things that make living in the city more enjoyable like transit, safe neighborhoods, and good public schools. We must also ensure that our streets are walkable and that new construction includes ground floor retail.

This sounds like a tall order, but eliminating some of the costs of maintaining the suburban lifestyle would go a long way towards making this goal achievable. I could have elaborated on that idea, but I didn't want to make my post any longer than it already ways. I'd rather respond to the article and comments than rant about my ideology.