[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

the idea that we want to slow down cars so a few people can ride their mountain bikes down the street is just idiocy in my opinion.

Paying taxes for streets and not being able to use them for BOTH driving safely AND biking safely is just idiocy in my opinion

[harshbarj]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

It's not idiocy if you're one of the many people that commute by bike in urban environments. Slowing down cars makes things safer for those people.

Slowing makes things safer for everyone. Anything under 30mph means that a pedestrian that is hit will likely survive. It also makes it safer for drivers as it increased the time you have to react and in the event of a crash, the damage is much less.

This graph CLEARLY shows the problem with speed in an urban area. This alone should be reason enough to lower speeds within an urban core.

[harshbarj]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Paying taxes for streets and not being able to use them for BOTH driving safely AND biking safely is just idiocy in my opinion

Sorry for the double post. Now that Nebraska is pulling sales taxes from everyone to pay for the streets means even car free people (like myself) will be paying for the streets. Just to head off the normal "cyclists don't pay taxes' rubbish.

[harshbarj]

Now I'm sorry for a triple post.

Today, 9/15/2011, the city of Omaha had a public forum on the 2035 transportation master plan. Thanks to dotcomm it was recorded and it available online for viewing.

I am still watching it now, but so far it's been interesting.

DOT.Comm 09/15/11 06:55PM, DOT.Comm 09/15/11 06:55PM dotcomm on USTREAM. Other Technology

[JustMe_T3K]

Originally Posted by harshbarj

Now that Nebraska is pulling sales taxes from everyone to pay for the streets means even car free people (like myself) will be paying for the streets.

Homeowners without kids have to pay taxes for schools.

Changing speed limits on thousands of cars for a few hundred cyclists is silly.

Ride safe.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by harshbarj

Slowing makes things safer for everyone. Anything under 30mph means that a pedestrian that is hit will likely survive. It also makes it safer for drivers as it increased the time you have to react and in the event of a crash, the damage is much less.

This graph CLEARLY shows the problem with speed in an urban area. This alone should be reason enough to lower speeds within an urban core.

Don't go play in the street (on a bike or on foot) if you don't want to get hit. I'm sorry...call me a common sense sort of guy...but streets are made to drive on...not ride bikes or walk.

[nebr]

Originally Posted by harshbarj

No, they are removing unnecessary lanes. Most of Omaha's streets are too big and simply encourage speeding. Smaller streets that put cars closer together have been proven to slow traffic, something that is good for everyone. If you have ever been down south 24th even on a busy day you would see it can get by with just one lane each way.

I agree with this - the streets downtown are ridiculous. Every morning on Harney Street I have my own lane to drive in because there are about 20 lanes heading east. Totally unnecessary. I say make east Omaha a more pedestrian friendly city. People like Calvinist are not going to visit downtown anyway. They can have west Omaha. But let's make east Omaha a place where young, educated people want to work, live and spend money. This city has an opportunity with this ongoing recession to capitalize on its low unemployment rate and low cost of living. All we need to do is take steps, like the ones Harsbarj discusses above, to attract talented and active people - they will in turn make this city an even better place to live.

[iamjacobm]

Harney gets 8,000 cars A DAY! There is absolutely no reason for it to have 4 one way lanes. Losing a lane in order to promote bike and pedestrian safety as well as promoting development(dedicated bike lanes do promote development) seems like a no brainer.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Don't go play in the street (on a bike or on foot) if you don't want to get hit. I'm sorry...call me a common sense sort of guy...but streets are made to drive on...not ride bikes or walk.

If I'm riding safely and legally obeying traffic laws the only reason I could think of getting hit would be due to negligence on the part of someone using a 2 ton weapon
So a cyclist like me, who averages 19-21 MPH on a road bike has no right to safely use the road even though the law states I do? Are you advocating I ride on the sidewalk where I am a real danger to pedestrians?

Or is your point that there are some roads where it is too dangerous for a bicycle to be, even though they have a right to be there?
Now if too many streets like that exist, where do I cycle?

Is it any different than putting sidewalks in so people can safely walk even though in many areas they are hardly used??

Maybe we are finally catching up with other industrialized nations (Canada, Germany, France, Holland) that decades ago planned for getting around by foot, bike, public transit and car SIMULTANEOUSLY, instead of having everything being primarily car-centric.

I don't know how NE funds roads, but in IL property tax AND fuel tax funds it. Unless you are homeless, you are paying property tax either directly or indirectly through rent-so we are all paying for roads. The argument that only vehicles pay for roads and therefore shouldn't have to share or fund infrastructure for other users is plain bullsh*#!

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Don't go play in the street (on a bike or on foot) if you don't want to get hit. I'm sorry...call me a common sense sort of guy...but streets are made to drive on...not ride bikes or walk.

That's pretty interesting logic considering that streets and roads outdated the automobile by a very wide margin.