"Waste of money"

On Sunday at church, following the worship service, we had a brief financial planning presentation. I'm sure it was to make people think about their expenditures, budgets, savings, etc., going into a new year. It was presented by two retired gentlemen who are members of our congregation. Both had very successful careers (one an accountant / small business owner, the other an insurance guy).

The insurance guy asked, "What's the biggest waste of money - no, second biggest waste of money - that most people spend money on?

A few guesses from people in the audience.

The answer - "Your car." ("The first biggest waste of money is your second car.")

Wow! You'd a-thunk I wrote the script! (Haha!)

This fella doesn't hate cars - in fact, he said he and his wife are finally down to two cars for two licensed drivers. He was just making the point that cars are a major and unending source of expenses. And perhaps our society is so car-centric that a large percentage feel they just couldn't survive without one.

I don't hate cars, either. In fact, I love some cars. For 20 or 25 years of my life, beginning around age 10, I was obsessed with cars. I'd get kicked out of class for drawing pictures of cars rather than paying attention. When I was 18, a buddy and I visited the Harrah car collection in Reno... I was shooed away from a row of brand-new Ferrari 375GTB Daytona sports cars, by a couple of burly security guys. I was sitting in one, behind the wheel. (Harrah was also the west coast Ferrari importer.) I've owned a few really nice cars, mostly earlier in life, including a '73 BMW 2002, an El Camino, a '72 Toyota FJ40 Land Cruiser. (Golly! I wish I still had 'em!) I like to watch Formula 1 Ferrari onboard camera videos on YouTube. (Try it! Amazing!)

But at this point in my life, I'm so very happy that the wife and I make do with one car between us, and that I am able to bicycle (and occasionally motorcycle) for my transportation. That saves A BUNDLE on car payments, insurance, fuel, maintenance. It gives me a bit of wiggle-room in a middle-income family budget that would otherwise be stretched tight like an overinflated balloon.

(If I were to buy another car, it would be something eminently practical - a Camry, or Accord, or maybe a Honda Element or small pickup. And almost certainly used - I'm not willing to pay the 25% premium for brand-new. I'm also amazed that some people willingly cough up another $300 or $500 or $800 a month for prestige/image, or "big" that will rarely be useful.)

Big City / Little City Biking

First, little city. (Boise is still on the "little" side, I maintain.) There is a story on the Statesman website about the bike sharing program that is launching in 2014, if the honchos have their way. I've commented before, most recently in September.

Really, there's not anything new to report. The annual pass remains at $75 (providing unlimited use, in 30-minute increments). Weekly and daily passes will also be available. The 14 stations scattered across town will cost $20k-30k each to install. The bikes will probably be "3 speed cruisers." If you lose one while you have it checked out, you'll probably have to cough up $1200 to replace it. (Sweeeeet cruiser, huh?!!)

I like the concept of bike share! And it really makes sense in densely-populated cities with lots of tourists and downtown apartment dwellers. The demographics are a little different in Boise - not a huge tourist trade, and relatively few urban apartment dwellers (where space is at a premium and a "shared" bike would therefore be more attractive). But it could very well be successful here, if you measure success in usage.

If you measure "successful" by the program being self-sustaining, it's less likely. Most or all bike share programs are subsidized, either by the government or private industry. (Driving a car or riding a city bus are also subsidized.) My only misgivings about the Boise Bike Share are the government subsidies. As a fiscal conservative, I question the expenditure of public dollars for yet another new program, when we're already so deeply in debt. As one commenter on the Statesman website said, "The amount of money for bike share programs is dwarfed by corporate subsidies. Bike share gets a crumb or two while corporate interests get their own cake." That is true... but a million bike shares, pathways, bridge rebuilds, highway projects, etc., etc., and suddenly you have multiple cakes' worth of crumbs!

Get some deep-pockets local private enterprise - Zions Bank, US Bank, Micron, Gardener Company, Albertsons - to sponsor it, and I'm all in!

Now, Big City. Chicago has seen a major uptick in the number of bicycle commuters. As bike lanes have expanded, and they've kicked off their own bike share (second in scope only to New York, in USA programs), gas keeps getting more expensive, more people have taken to their two-wheelers.

Bike lanes, and maintenance of bike lanes (including winter maintenance) aren't free. And a city councilman recently suggested a $25/year cycling tax to offset those expenses. Story HERE. Some - the anti-bike people - spoke up in favor. Others mocked the idea. "Maybe pedestrians ought to be charged a shoe tax to use the sidewalks." There are other questions - how is it enforced? being a major one.

I can see both sides. As a libertarian/conservative, I'm totally in favor of the actual beneficiaries of the facility, whatever it happens to be, footing the bill. And I'm happy to pay my fair share. But what is it?

Everybody benefits when people choose bike transportation, in the sense that the roadways become incrementally less congested, and air quality incrementally improves. And even if I don't own a car, I benefit from having the roads, so the UPS guy can bring stuff to me, and the garbage man can take stuff away.

But should the person who rides 50 miles a year, pay the same "tax" as the person who rides 5000 miles a year? And how much wear-and-tear does a bicycle inflict on the infrastructure, compared with a Prius or a Peterbilt? It's very difficult to make any sort of objective assessment. (Even a per-gallon fuel tax is "rigged," because miles per gallon doesn't always equate to wear-and-tear, need for infrastructure, etc.)

Chillin'

Apologies for not posting more frequently as of late. I s'pose it's mostly "winter business as usual," and lots of other irons in the fire.

White stuff fell upon our fair community the weekend of December 14. Since then it's mostly been below freezing, but the snow receded significantly despite. Then yesterday (12/20) starting around afternoon drive time, snow once again fell. Currently we've got a blanket of 3 inches or so. So far, I've put some miles on the bike every day.

Temperatures have ranged from -6 (brrr!) to mid-30s. With layers, I can get relatively comfortable from the mid-teens on up. Icy roads are another matter; I'm not uncomfortable on them unless I'm being tailgated by an impatient motorist. And if I stick to the side-streets, sharing the road is rarely a problem.

Slippery-wise, I've fared well... not even any close calls. No studded tires, or even particularly wide tires. I can only attribute it to the experience gained over 27 or so winters of riding. I think I've mostly mastered the physics of the thing... I can avoid introducing any extraneous forces, as I roll over the particularly slippery stretches. The worst conditions are "frozen slush" - it makes you bounce all over the place, and threatens even your tiny contact patches. But so far at least, not too much frozen slush to deal with.

(I've written about dealing with the "winter trifecta" - dark, cold, and slippery before. HERE.)

People see me arrive at the office and say, "You're crazy!" It's a matter of perspective. From my seat, it seems crazier to live clear out in the boondocks, so you have to drive to go anywhere - and so you drive on the terrible days and the gorgeous days.

The scenery is beautiful, when it's blanketed with snow. I share some photos (including a fashionable "selfie") I've snapped over the last week or 10 days.

Why you should never bike to work

A fella named Brendan Leonard has written a witty column... read it HERE.

Mostly he's poking fun at the lame excuses that are often heard, for why people don't.

Snippets:

9. It's too dangerous.
"The absolute best thing is to stay in... your car, because no one's ever been killed when they're inside an automobile."

8. You have to wear a tie to work. Or a suit. Or a skirt.

7. You have to go to the gym after/before work.

6. You can't show up all sweaty and smelly for your job.
"Your co-workers will be all, 'Bob, what the hell did you do, bike to work today? It smells like somebody's gutting a week-old deer carcass in your cubicle.'"

5. You don't have the right bike for it.
"The only bike you own are your Trek Madone, and your single-speed 29er, neither of which will work. You'd have to go out and buy a dedicated commuting bike..."

4. You can't be wearing a bike helmet and messing up your hair before work.

3. The route from your home to your office would be suicide on a bike.

2. What if it rains?
"Thanks to umbrellas, sprinting from your car to your office, and sometimes holding a newspaper above your head, you haven't gotten wet outside of your shower since 2007."

1. You would have to change your routine.
"Please. Give up your 45-minute drive into work, the drive that energizes you for the day ahead? Give up interacting with all those other fun, friendly, courteous drivers on the freeway? Sitting in traffic? Road construction? Merging? Not a chance."

Used-up tire

Now and then, somebody asks me, "When do you switch out an old tire?"

When the part that touches the road isn't black any more, that's my indicator.  Actually, I noticed a few little red blotches a couple weekends ago when I cleaned up the drivetrain, and I've been riding on good luck since.

This tire gave me fantastic service - between May and today, it rolled over 3482 miles - with zero flats!  Sah-WEEET!  I'm totally sold on Vittoria Randonneurs!  (A slightly wider, and significantly better-treaded tire went on, for the winter months.  That's good, because there's 2 or 3 inches of snow on the ground out there.)

Bicycles don't belong, because they don't pay their way?

It's the age-old, constantly-debated question, and a weapon of choice for motorists who resent cyclists on the road. "If they want to be on the roads, they should be paying registration"... have to buy insurance, etc. Cyclists aren't paying their fair share, goes the reasoning.

I saw THIS ARTICLE recently: "Drivers get Rolled," by Christopher Caldwell. It is well-written and somewhat sympathetic to cyclists, but Caldwell contends that motorists are picking up the tab. He feels cyclists are getting more than they deserve, when they get to share lane-space with cars. His bludgeon is number-of-drivers, compared with number-of-cyclists.

"According to the U.S. census, 120 million people drive to work every weekday, and 750,000 bike. In other words, there are 160 drivers for every biker. Bike use is growing—but even at 40 times the present level it would still not be sensible public policy to squander a quarter, a third, or half of the lane space on a busy rush-hour artery for a bike lane."

Interesting and valid point, and on its own, it might be an argument for banning bicycles from roads, at least those roads that don't have adequate bike lanes.

But it seems strangely at odds with this, from the same article: "The problem is that our transportation network, built at the cost of trillions over the decades, is already over capacity... It is not so easily rejiggered. Unquestionably we have misbuilt our transport grid. It makes us car-dependent. It should better accommodate bikers and walkers. But for now it can’t."

So - he really offers no solution to the problem of overcrowded roads and bike riders, but his point seems to be that bikes impede car traffic, so they don't belong. And that must change at the expense of the cyclists who will use the facilities, or it's not fair to the motorists.

There are some other "cues" that seem to explain his viewpoint:
1) He begins with a story about a large group of recreational cyclists taking over the highway in rural New Hampshire.
2) He seems to think that cyclists are mostly affluent and upper-class. (Which may be somewhat true for recreational/sport cyclists, but certainly not for transportation cyclists! Look around, Mr. Caldwell! Lots of people ride a bike because they can't afford a car!)

Frankly, I share his resentment toward weekend-warrior bike riders who, en masse, make driving frustrating for motorists. Almost without fail, the motorists who resent cyclists recount stories of such groups and their lawlessness and lack of courtesy. (If you think I'm wrong, you're not paying attention.)

Mr. Caldwell uses numbers-on-the-roads, but overlooks the source of revenue for road building and maintenance. (Which most motorists seem to believe comes exclusively from license plates and gas tax.) I know it varies by jurisdiction, but in most places roads are supported via income tax, property tax, etc., as well as those "user fees." In our community (ACHD), property taxes are a bigger slice of the revenue pie than anything else - substantially more than the "highway users fund" (gas tax and registration).

Here's yet another way to look at how money might be allocated for road projects. Congressman Earl Blumenauer from Oregon - who is easily the most "pro-bicycle" elected official in D.C. - points to this disturbing statistic... cyclists and pedestrians account for 15 percent of all highway deaths, but only get 1 percent of safety-related highway funding. (Article HERE.) I s'pose if they were banned from the roads, they wouldn't get killed so much. Is that the direction we want to go as a society?

The Oregon Bicycle Transportation Alliance has recently begun a new "Who pays for our roads?" awareness campaign that has already been called into question, but they make the contention, among others, that it would take 9600 bicycles to damage the roadways as much as one car. (Chart HERE.) Pretty much any position can be defended with "facts and figures." As Mark Twain is alleged to have said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Mr. Caldwell's beef seems to be with a cyclist - particularly a recreational cyclist - who is exclusively occupying a motor-vehicle lane, and indeed that's an unfortunate reality, when a bike lane or breakdown lane isn't available.

Greenbelt to Eagle Status Report

I'd not ridden downstream on the Greenbelt for awhile, so when a beautiful Saturday came along, I decided a survey was in order.

In mid-September, Eagle city officials ordered some clearing action, and moving the pathway in a couple places where it infringed on private property; story HERE. And then later in the month, the Army Corps of Engineers threw a new bureaucratic wrench in the cogs, declaring that they hadn't authorized a the pathway through designated wetlands; story HERE. (It's always something, isn't it?) I wanted to see for myself if it was currently passable.

As expected, even though most of the autumn leaves are gone, the scenery was lovely. And the pathway was pretty decent, as well. People on their 22mm skinny tires might find a couple of uncomfortable stretches, since the last couple miles are dirt of varying quality. But my 28mm tires did fine. I wouldn't hesitate to take my 6-year-old granddaughter for a ride, from one end to the other.

Hopefully the photos below are an accurate representation of what you might expect, if you ventured that way.

There used to be a bona-fide bridge over the canal. It collapsed under somewhat mysterious circumstances a few months back. The debris has been cleared away. As of Saturday, there's a beam spanning the canal, roughly the width of a railroad tie. So, drunk people, especially those with bad balance, should avoid it. I didn't ride across, but I didn't feel uncomfortable at all carrying my bike... and while I was paused there to snap a photo, another fella came along in the other direction on his skinny-tire bike. He carried his over, as well.

In a way, the current state of the pathway is probably a good thing... if it were glass-smooth asphalt from end to end, with a nice, safe bridge, it would probably be more crowded on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. (I saw maybe 3 other cyclists, a couple pedestrians, and a few fishermen.) But I can't be greedy, or think I should have such a beautiful resource all to my self.

Clancy has mentioned his dream in the past... punch it all the way through to Eagle Island State Park (another couple miles downstream), and then allow bike-adventurers to ride down there and camp overnight, and then ride home the next morning. That would be a fantastic family outing! Clancy, you have my vote for governor, if you ever decide to run!