Not that Team Gahan plans to do anything about it: "Bike commuting's worst enemy isn't what you think."

At some indeterminate point, but quite soon now, Pinocchio Rosenbarger will be out there with the paint crews, drawing those trademark "Chickenshit Sharrows" symbols on streets where cyclists accepting them at face value will be the target of open season by unreconstructed and imbecilic drivers.

Rosenbarger will cluck, dance, declare victory, and cash yet another paycheck.

And Team Gahan still won't get it ... not one bit. The street grid transformation might have made the streets safe for cyclists. It will go only halfway, primarily because drivers (and paving contractors) are New Albany's only real protected species.

BIKE COMMUTING'S WORST ENEMY ISN'T WHAT YOU THINK, by Arian Horbovetz (The Urban Phoenix via Strong Towns)

 ... Most people in my home city of Rochester, New York don’t fully understand why anyone would commute using any form of transportation other than a car. This mental construct is so pervasive that any form of transit other than driving is seen as either “fringe,” or worse, seen as a reflection of the person’s socioeconomic status in life.

As we continue to crawl our way toward making cities more bike friendly for cycling commuters, the biggest barrier we may have to tackle, the one that gives people a license to dismiss it as a transit outlier, is simply perception — the misconception that bikes are a means of recreation instead of a tool for empowerment, as well as the commonly held notion that biking for transportation has to be motivated by a negative catalyst (poverty, loss of license, etc.). In fairness, bikes are tremendous resources for folks that are in these positions. It can be a game changer, helping to level the playing field for our poorest communities. But there are a multitude of other reasons people make the choice to ride instead of drive.

Many think the ultimate enemy of the bicycle is the car, but the reason cars are so dangerous is simply the false perception that our streets and roads are made for driving and nothing else. It is the complete dismissal, whether conscious or unconscious, of any other practical way of getting around. It is the lack of understanding that cars are one of many forms of transit, albeit by far the most popular one. It is the lack of respect for bikes as a viable vehicle for traveling to where you need to go.

In sum, it is the mindset that categorizes cycling as an inferior way of moving about rather than an appreciation for the personal and community health benefits it provides.

To conclude ...

Seeing bikes as transit machines, like cars only slower, is an important mental hurdle for non-cyclists to overcome. It is no different than choosing a pickup over a sedan, a sub-compact versus an SUV, or a luxury car over a coupe. It is simply another way to get from point A to point B, with advantages and disadvantages. The sooner we all accept this fact, the sooner we will begin to open our eyes to a multitude of transit options for our cities that truly benefit everyone.

"If we're interested in social justice, beginning to reorient the majority of the transportation infrastructure running through cities should be sought."

Is it your city, or does it belong to the ones passing through, speeding as they text?

The Bicycle as a Tool of Social Justice, by Steven Snell (Planetizen)

... Philosopher and social critic Ivan Illich was fascinated by technology. Forty years ago he was arguing that the automobile, rather than a tool of freedom, contributed to entrenching mobility hierarchies. The car is at the sharp tip of the pyramid; all other transportation modes can get sucked under its tires. Where we've continued to allow the design of our cities to worship the automobile, Illich might have seen a monopoly, or worse, a dictatorship. He saw cities as subservient to this machine rather than an expression of people.

Illich couldn't have forecasted that motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading cause of death for those aged one to 34. Nor could he have fathomed that the use of a technology while driving could become such an epidemic. Distracted driving is the number one leading cause of car accidents in America. Drivers who use a hand-held device are four times more likely to get into a car accident than those who don't, and individuals who text are 23 times more likely to get into an accident.

David Karem tells big greasy whoppers about the Big Four Bridge.

David Karem must think we aren't very bright.

Pedestrian bridge will close rather than salt or shovel snow and ice, by Gordon Boyd (WAVE-3)

"This is a bridge that is not part of the Kentucky highway transportation system," Karem said. "It's an amenity now. So when it comes to maintenance and repairs, we're on our own."

JeffG reminds us of the arrangement v.v. the Ohio River Bridges Project.

Bamboozled again. This bridge is primary transportation infrastructure, not an amenity. Can you imagine them saying they wouldn't clean the Kennedy Bridge? Remember when removing non-automobile options from the new bridge was justified by opening this one for that traffic?

You can feel the gears grinding in their heads: "How can it be 'primary' if it doesn't involve a car?"

Drinking Progressively: Let's make it Tuesday evenings, beginning on November 25.

Jackie Green on Louisville AND New Albany: "We need to address the real problem in any (traffic) lane: mass and velocity."

Holy One Party Hegemony, Batman -- you mean a candidate for mayor can speak openly about such matters?

Chairman Adam wouldn't DREAM of allowing it here in Nawbony. The funding grandees would shut THAT mother down faster than Harvest Homecoming chokes off independent business activity on Market & Pearl.

You see, Jackie Green gets it: Public safety isn't entirely about demolishing as many houses as possible. It's also about how people get back and forth on city streets running from one vacant, weed-covered lot to the next ... but try telling that to the current regime in New Albany.

By the way, wouldn't it have been a better idea to slow those massive heavy trucks by design  BEFORE diverting them from Main to Spring?

Or would that have required advance planning beyond the capability of salaried staff?

On second thought, ignore the last question.

Self-incrimination, and all.

Louisville should move beyond bike lanes, by Jackie Green (Insider Louisville)

Editor’s note: Jackie Green is a Louisville businessman who owns Bike Courier Bike Shops and is a candidate for mayor.

Louisville cannot readily change the mass of vehicles on the road. Louisville, however, can limit the velocity of vehicles traveling surface roads inside the Watterson Expressway. Slower, calmer traffic gives travelers more time to assess, more time to decide, more time to react. Slower, calmer traffic diminishes stress. Slower, calm, safe streets benefit the community of pedestrians, wheelchair users, young children in strollers, joggers, skate boarders, cyclists and motorists.

Drivers are also more likely to embrace slower speeds for the benefit of the broader community than they are to embrace the loss of travel lanes to cyclists.

Reducing the velocity of vehicles traveling surface roads inside the Watterson can be accomplished by eliminating one-way roads, lowering the speed limit inside the Watterson to 20 mph, and increasing speeding fees dramatically.

While D.C. has instituted a $500 fine for motorists who hit a cyclist, Louisville should explore a fine for hitting a pedestrian. Cities are for people. Our common spaces should be dominated by people, not cars, not bicycles.

Rather than calming traffic, current city leadership has chosen to take lanes away from motor vehicles and segregate cyclists in lanes that are not protected by big trees or bollards, are seldom cleared of debris, are covered with winter’s ice, are baked by summer’s sun, traverse treacherous pavement, do not serve destination needs, and pit cyclists against motorists and pedestrians. Louisville needs to get beyond bike lanes. We need to address the real problem in any lane: mass and velocity.

Matt surveys INDOT's "bridge to nowhere."

You can almost see INDOT scratching its turbo-powered head, muttering: "Whass them pad-estrians want, aneeway ... the hole damn werld?"

NASH: Our ‘bridge to nowhere’, by Matt Nash (N and T)

During the 2008 presidential election “the bridge to nowhere” got a lot of press. The Alaskan bridge that hundreds of millions of federal dollars were earmarked for became the poster child for pork barrel spending.

Fast forward a few years and the citizens of Southern Indiana and Louisville have been sitting around waiting for the completion of the Big Four Bridge which has been a literal “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Here's the takeaway, one that most driving commuters never stop to consider.

Most people don’t realize it but hundreds of people utilize the Clark Memorial Bridge to get to work on a daily basis. Whether walking or riding a bike you can see people on the span at all hours of the day whether for exercise or for their basic transportation needs. Without a way to cross the Ohio River many people will not be able to make it to their jobs for several weeks without being able to utilize the Big Four Bridge.

As though INDOT would consider any non-automotive conveyance, whether a bicycle or one's own feet, as constituting "transportation."

Green: "Committee seeking to re-open K&I bridge needs to get moving."

To open a week that will see Jeff Speck visit New Albany, causing acid reflux amid the barren intellectual worldview of Bob Caesar, Jackie Green inflicts heartburn, too, with the recipient being Louisville's mayor Greg Fischer. As the K & I foot-dragging continues, Jackie insists on asking those difficult questions:

Let’s hope great things are happening behind the scenes. If not, the mayor needs to make the K&I bridge a higher priority. A phone call from the mayor to the city offices responsible for creating the document should assure the work would be done well and quickly. Is the mayor committed to sustainable transportation enough to make that phone call? Or, does the mayor not have sufficient influence over city offices? Or, are great things happening behind the scenes (if so, what happened to transparency)?

That "T" word: Transparency. The quality they talk about, but shirk from implementing. Here on the Right Bank, we know all about it. Take it away, Jackie.

A tale of two bridges: Committee seeking to re-open K&I bridge needs to get moving, learn from Big Four mistakes, by Jackie Green (guest blogger at Insider Louisville)

... A K&I bridge committee comprised of representation from mayors on both sides of the river, two U.S. congressional offices, Louisville Waterfront Development, Indiana Greenways Commission, Jefferson County Attorney’s office, planning and design offices, local citizen groups, etc. has met several times in recent months. The needed local parties seem to be at the table.

The committee’s plan has been to produce a document addressing every possible concern that Norfolk Southern might have regarding opening the K&I bridge to human-powered transportation. The planned document is also to address the Kentuckiana River Trail, K&I bridge history, endorsements of opening the bridge, examples of other rail/trail bridges running parallel and harmoniously, the Big Four Bridge success, etc.

Despite months of meetings, the committee has produced nothing more than a one-sheet outline of the document. The committee met on Nov. 1 and established a self-imposed (but long-overdue) deadline of Dec. 2 for unveiling the presentation to the group. It also established a goal of Dec. 16 to present the document to the CEO of Norfolk Southern. The Dec. 2 meeting was cancelled. The 16th is past. Nothing seems to be happening.

"Mythbusting: Exposing Half-Truths That Support Automobile Dependency."

Suggesting that one think outside the boundaries of self-imposed boxes can have the "teaching pigs to dance" effect. Contemplating the future of the street grid in the context of traffic altered by tolled bridges across the Ohio is such a case.

The default (boxed) reaction seems to be: How could we possibly limit street lanes and slow traffic through New Albany when more people will want to use our arterial streets to pass through New Albany?

The better and unboxed question: What can we do to reduce traffic seeking to use our streets for pass-throughs, thuMythbusting: Exposing Half-Truths That Support Automobile Dependencys lessening volume? The answer: By imposing a cost (added time) to use our streets for reasons that don't benefit city residents, thus taking cars off the streets, and leaving streets available for use by those who live here and wish to come here.

How do we get from here to there? Start thinking, and grow some balls.

, by Todd Litman (Planetizen)

Some commentators recently expressed outraged that governments spend money on cycling improvements. Examples include Christopher Cadwell’s Drivers Get Rolled: Bicyclists Are Making Unreasonable Claims To The Road—And Winning, in the Weekly Standard, and Bob Poole’s A U.S. Bicycle Route System? in Surface Transportation Innovations #121. You could call them cycling critics, because they assume that bicyclists have inferior rights to use public roads and that cycling facility investments are wasteful and unfair, or call them automobile dependency advocates because their general message is that transportation planning should focus on facilitating automobile travel with little consideration for other modes ...

... Critics' arguments that pedestrians and cyclists receive an excessive share of roadway resources is more evidence that automobile travel makes people selfish. Automobile travel requires expensive facilities and large amounts of energy, imposes significant risks on other travelers, and causes significant air and noise pollution, yet motorists only see the costs they bear, ignoring the costs they impose on others.