Your statement is fundamentally flawed because it assumes that language is literalistic and lacks connotation. Please come back when you have at least a 7th grade understanding of written English.

Which wasn't your point. Your point, repeatedly stated, was "Motor vehicle facilities are a luxury".

If you want to discuss "missing the point", I'd start with the point of Portland being broke, in debt, headed further that way--but yet chasing some masturbatory dream of being a "world class biking city". The overt worship of "rankings"--put out by arbitrary bodies using arbitrary values--is for people (and municipalities) that have no internal sense of worth of their own.

The bigger picture of a city like Portland is that it is inherently unsustainable. a billion dollars in bicycle paths does nothing to increase that sustainability--the city still consumes goods at an ever-expanding rate, still requires infrastructure maintenance at an ever-increasing rate, and still requires massive amounts of global and international trade to keep the kinds of goods that you and I love to consume flowing into the city.

In other words, there's a much larger point here, which is this: Cities are not sustainable. They never have been, and never will. There is no magic potion, technology, or mode of transport that will deal with the problem inherent in every city like this: growth, extractive consumption, and an insatiable need for more.

Off-street paths aren't a bad idea, but given the high-volume use of most of them so far, they need a few things to make 'em better:

1) Grade separation or preferential signalling. Cyclists shouldn't have to stop at intersections, so eliminate the intersections and give the cyclists the default green anywhere a bridge or tunnel can't be built.

2) Lane markings. Remind folks to ride on the right, or in three-lane sections, give priority to the middle.

3) Enforcement.

@ecohuman still seems to be missing the point that given the population, we'd still have transportation infrastructure and facilities, even if most of it wasn't geared towards private motorists. 2 million people needing to go about their daily business is still 2 million people that need to get where they're going safely.

Mostly wrong, though it's a popular fantasy. Bicycle clubs were only part of the effort, and they certainly didn't "start" it. The push to pave and improve roads outside cities largely involved a coalition of several groups--especially businesses. City streets (not rural towns, cities) were paved in America early on.

This is easy to discover--unless, that is, you rely in Wikipedia as your main source of information.

"Let's not forget that in Portland specifically, 6% of all trips are taken by bicycle but we still get less than one percent of transportation funding."

Again wrong, because bicycles enjoy the benefits of city streets and roads, traffic devices, bridges, and other amenities. There is no direct "bicycle" part of the fund that fnds those things.

The computer you're typing on came from Asia. I suggest you throw it away, and purchase one that arrived in the US by bicycle.

And, I'd suggest you only send and receive US mail that is transported by bicycle.

And that truck you drive? Give that up, too, since the "facilities" it uses are a luxury. All those goods going back and forth between heavy industry? give 'em up, Paul.

And your lighting, and pavement and concrete, bulk shipments to restaurants, glass, most clothing (that used shirt frst came here by truck), printers, fax machines, computer servers that host your e-mail, all of it.

And, of course, bicycles. All that aluminum, steel, rubber, plastic, synthetic materials, batteries, and so on? Got here on a road, mostly manufactured in other countries and shipped to a port where it eventually got delivered on a road, highway, and street. All those luxuries.

In fact, bicycle manufacture is just as unsustainable, resource extractive, and abusive to the ecosystem as cars--the only difference is they use less mined and processed materials, so they take longer to do their damage.

Let's do it, Paul. Let's give up those luxury facilities. I'll do it if you do.

You're wrong on both counts. And, bicycles *depend* on "motorist facilities"--roads, streets, and traffic direction devices.

Paul, most people I talk to don't see it as a "bicycles vs. cars" issue. It makes for good drama and sycophantic play-acting, but thinking grownups know better. But as I read this blog more, I'm realizing that that false polarity is at the core of its proposition (and most of its commenters, it seems).

As for this bike lane design--it deserves a lot of criticism. It's poorly thought out, myopic in several ways, and largely ignores how real humans drive, walk, and ride. I'm reading the praises of it, and they seem to focus on "cool video" more than any critical assessment. That "study" done on them is so unprofessional as to be silly.

That said--why is the City almost $20 short of budget, yet taking $20 million in "efficiency savings" from sewer fnds to build boutique pet projects like these? Unless you're a "bikes at all costs" person, wouldn't you think that "savings" should first be applied to "shortfalls" so that, er, there isn't a shortfall?

Or do you short both the overall budget *and* critical sewer projects so you can build bike lanes with bioswales?