This is the city that allows businesses to expand and doesn’t do anything for the surrounding infrastructure. We have busy four-lane roads with stop signs at its intersections. We have more traffic in front of our expanded grocery stores and malls than the roads were ever designed to handle. And yet we are supposedly one of the friendliest cities for bikes. Bullsh*t.

The city’s Platinum Biking City Planning Committee recommended that the city, “Review and strengthen the zoning ordinance to ensure adequate on-site pedestrian and bicycle access, parking, and circulation” (39). The efforts of those that promote multi-use facilities are wasted on committees that focus more on dollars and cents than common sense.

If I ever hear again that the city can’t afford to fund public safety or health, I’ll suggest that it takes my tax dollars and shove it up the Marcus entertainment complex’s backside. In the meantime, I’m writing to both the mayor and my alderperson to stop this from moving forward without the appropriate facilities in place. And, to paraphrase the whole Field of Dreams cliche, if Marcus builds it as currently planned, I will not come.

This post is dedicated to Dr. King, President-elect Obama, and progress.

This demonstrates that there are still many good people out there in many different professions, even those that have some of the most demanding, difficult jobs. I understand the stress that police officers encounter every day and the challenges that they are forced to face. But even in such a sad situation, it is refreshing to see the good come out. The holiday season seems to do that to people.

CNN coverage of Mumbai Terror

Since I ride a road bike, I didn’t think it would be too difficult getting to and from work. However, I did a dry run recently and discovered that my ride is actually much longer than I anticipated (17 miles instead of 12 by car; 1 hour and 20 minutes). But that was nothing compared to what I discovered when I rode the first time to work this week:

I don’t like commuting by bicycle to work.

It’s not that I don’t like the ride to or from work. In fact, it’s a pretty nice ride along residential streets and bike trails. Nor is it the cold; I’ve been able to adapt with cold-weather clothing. And it can’t be the distance, since I typically try to get in at least 20 miles per ride and want to get up to 60 miles in a single ride this year.

But I do have my reasons – okay, excuses - for not enjoying the overall experience. But I stand by them. They’re my excuses, but I know that I’m not the only person that feels this way. Here are the reasons why I have been turned off to biking to work:

1. It’s a long ride from home.
2. I have to pack.
3. I have to carry my stuff on my back.
4. I have to change and shower when I arrive.
5. I have to change back to ride.
6. I sometimes have to work my part-time job afterwards.

For starters, my usual drive is about 12 miles between home and work, which takes about 20 minutes. By bike, the trip is about 17 miles; I timed it at 1 hour 20 minutes once. So I would need leave really early. To minimize the time, I drove to a park in town and rode 7.5 miles (about 30 minutes) to work. At least I didn’t use as much gas to get here.

Second, I don’t like packing. I have to either pack the night before or get up really early to do it in the morning. And I work in an office, so I have to wear the appropriate attire (bicycle shorts, jerseys, and road shoes are not appropriate for the office). When I packed for Bike to Work Week, I carried the following:

• Dress shirt.
• Chino (khaki) pants.
• Necktie.
• Dress socks.
• Business-appropriate shoes.
• Shampoo and deodorant (they supply soap in the showers at work).
• Bath towel and washcloth.
• U-lock and cable.
• Stuff I normally carry with me (wallet, wristwatch, etc.).
• Dress shoes.

It may not seem like that I’m carrying much, but the backpack gets pretty bulky when I add shoes (I don’t have a way to attach a rack to my bike) and heavy when I put in the U-lock and cable. Then I have to carry a number of things that I normally pack in my regular backpack, such as pens, a calculator, a laptop (which I left locked up at work), my day planner, and some other small items. It may not be a lot of weight, but I essentially carried an additional 25 pounds.

That leads me to my third issue: carrying extra weight. Because I’m carrying more weight, I’m working harder on the bike. There are both benefits and drawbacks to this. The benefit is that I’m burning more calories. The drawbacks include that I’m putting more stress on myself, I limit some of my mobility, and I can’t move as fast as without the added weight. A good backpack would probably be in order, though.

Fourth, I have to change. My office building has a locker room with showers, so freshening up after a ride is not a problem. It’s fine if I get to work early enough. But when I get here with everyone else, I end up waiting for a shower. I guess part of me just isn’t very comfortable showering in a locker room. For my part-time job, I don’t have a shower facility, so I would have to change in the bathroom. I would still end up with that sweaty feeling (I know, I’m probably strange that way). Either way, I have to take additional time to do so.

Fifth, I have to change back into cycling clothes before I leave. That means changing again. On a warmer day, riding in office clothes gets really uncomfortable really fast (on a very warm and humid day, walking outside for two minutes gets really uncomfortable really fast). The only way to keep cool on the bike is to change back before riding.

Finally, I have a part-time retail job that I need to work right after my primary job. On those days, I have very little time to change, ride, and change again to work. Between the time it would take to commute from one side of town to the other and to change, I would be late for the part-time job. And if I had to wear something slightly more casual, I would need to bring an additional change of clothes (unless I don’t have any meetings at my regular job that day). Additionally, the building does not have appropriate bicycle facilities (no bike rack) to keep my bike safe.

Does this mean that I no longer condone commuting by bicycle? Absolutely not. These are my excuses, but it doesn’t mean that everyone should feel the same way. I see a number of other people that ride to and from work every day. One of my coworkers rode practically every day in the snow this past winter (and we had a record-breaking snowfall!). If my commute were considerably shorter, I would seriously consider riding more and driving less.

Although bicycle commuting is not for everyone, there is little reason why people shouldn’t consider at least making short trips around town. According to the 1 World 2 Wheels Web site, many trips driven by Americans are under two miles, and vehicles need to warm up before pollution controls start to work. If many of us just ride these short distances to take care of errands, we can save gas, help the environment, and make bicycling a visible alternative to driving.

But until I move closer to work, I’ll be driving.

Working on the east side of town, many of my lunchtime options are in Monona. The problem is that many of those options allow smoking, despite that they have otherwise good menus. Since quitting smoking, I cannot stand cigarette smoke and will no longer patronize any place that allows smoking. With the ban coming in June 2009, I’m actually looking forward to trying out some of those places again and discovering ones I haven’t eaten at yet.

Other communities in the area are also considering a smoking ban. The problem, as some critics will attest, is that we will end up with a patchwork of communities that either ban or allow smoking. Living in Madison, I’ve been experiencing it since the city banned smoking in public buildings three years ago.

Now only if the state would get its act together and put a comprehensive law into place. It’s not only a no-brainer; it’s good for business, and good for the people.

The Capital Times: Monona smoking ban OK’d, will go in effect June 1, 2009

For years, people preferred the automobile to trains, buses, or subways. Some probably considered that spending on these forms of transportation should be cut, especially since they lost money. Now peopel are realizing that these alternatives are more cost effective for both them and their communities, and they’re greener than even the most fuel-efficient automobile.

But the important thing about this is that a catalyst like the price of gas will push public officials to reconsider where to spend transportation dollars. Buses carry more people, and they also can be equipped with racks to carry bicycles. Even I’m considering combining the bus and my bike as an alternative to driving. Not only would I save in fuel, but I would also save in maintenance (less wear and tear means less time in the shop).

It just takes a paradigm shift for people to realize that we need other forms of travel. Let the transportation revolution begin:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Commuter buses fill more seats

The Associated Press: High gas prices lead to surge in mass transit

ABCNews: Americans Park Cars, Look to Public Transit

Reuters: Facing $4 gasoline, more Americans take mass transit

Today’s prices are $3.69 per gallon in my city. With an 18.4-cent per gallon suspension, I’d still be spending over $3.50 per gallon. So instead of paying what was a record-high $3.25 last year, I’m still spending more after a suspension. Let’s do the math.

Assume I I have a 12-gallon gas tank. At $3.25 per gallon, last year I was spending $39.00 to fill it up completely (assuming I could get to the gas station on gas vapors). At $3.69 per gallon this year, I should be spending $44.28. So I’m spending $5.28 more.

Now with a gas tax suspension, the price per gallon would be about $3.51 per gallon (I’m rounding for simplicity). The cost to fill a 12-gallon tank is $42.12. That’s a $2.16 savings. But compared to last year, I spent $3.12 more. That’s an 8% increase. Hmm, that’s not much of a savings, is it?

But there is an unintended cost increase that both candidates neglect to mention: vehicle maintenance costs. By suspending the gas tax, the federal government collects less revenue. Less revenue means less road maintenance and repairs (some of the local and state road construction funds come from the federal government). Less road repair means more bumps and potholes. And that means more wear and tear on your car. So you end up spending more to repair your car than what you saved by not spending much on gas. A $2.16 savings versus a $500 auto repair… I’ll spend $2 more per gallon, thank you.

If these candidates are serious about real solutions, they would be looking at paradigm shifts. Our society is far too dependent on each individual owning his or her own car and having the convenience to drive less than a couple of miles to do whatever.

As socially responsible people, it would help for us to start asking about things like alternative modes of transportation, teleconferencing, and learning ways to reduce the need for fuel. We’re beyond the point where we realize that we need more refineries. We need to consider other forms of fuel for generating electricity and heat.

Finally, we need to drive less and walk (or bike) more. Think about it: $0 per gallon.

Appleton Post-Crescent: Gas tax holiday mixes signals

The setup includes a sensor and a dedicated traffic light tied into the rest of the traffic lights at the intersection. The traffic light is activated when a bicyclist rides over a marking on the trail to trigger the light. The bike traffic light then turns green; the regular traffic lights in all directions turn red, stopping all motor vehicle traffic and allowing the bicyclist to go through.

I can think of a number of intersections in the city I live in where this would be very beneficial. I  would especially like to see it available where we have major highways that are either difficult or too busy to cross. This would also help newer bicyclists realize that the city is not that scary a place to travel by bicycle.

I’m sure the technology isn’t cheap. It would require installing a signal loop in the pavement and a dedicated bicycle traffic signal, plus some time rewiring and reprogramming the motorist traffic signals. Another consideration is whether or not the sensor marking would last from our constant winter plowings (although one idea is to create an embeded marking). But costs and considerations aside, if done right, it would be better than the cost of a life or injury.

Here is a link to the video on YouTube (here’s the hyperlink in case the video doesn’t work): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwNJYtmlyqw.

The American Cancer Society recently sponsored a town hall meeting to discuss the impending statewide smoking ban, also known as the Breathe Free Wisconsin Act. Tavern League of Wisconsin representatives clashed with non-smokers and other business owners during that meeting.

The Tavern League reps stated that by implementing a smoking ban, we are taking livelihoods away from tavern owners. Proponents argue that they’d rather patronize a smoke-free establishment. One tavern owner even experienced business increase when her restaurant went smoke-free two years ago.

One quote really stuck out in my mind in the article. According to the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, Chippewa County Tavern League president Karen Anderson argued that statistics can be found anywhere. “They’re numbers arranged on a report to justify a cause,” she said. “These are friends, people, real-life people, who are going out of business.”

My response is: what about those that end up with respiratory problems, lung cancer, or other complications from being around second-hand smoke? Aren’t they real people too?

The Tavern League’s arguments have become the focus of the ban on the legislative floor in the state capital. Senator Breske, a former tavern owner, and Senator Decker have successfully stalled the bill on the senate floor; they’d like to postpone the ban to taverns and restaurants to January 1, 2011.

Here is my take on it: if the state is going to really push for an all-encompassing statewide ban on smoking, it needs to show that businesses benefit from it. I’m not talking just numbers, but also why those that failed really did fail after a local ban, and how others are still in business and survived such a ban. Don’t look only at big cities like Los Angeles; look into smaller communities that mirror some of the communities in Wisconsin.

And if that doesn’t hold up to the opponents, try to find out why they’re opposed… who’s paying them to fight off the ban?