But honestly, it’s almost as if public officials don’t have this sense of urgency. The urgency of hit and runs, the urgency of laziness that causes everyone to drive 1 mile to the grocery store, the urgency of the fact that if we keep widening the frickin’ roads and highways we won’t have any more room for outdoor public space.

LA 30 yrs from now – no sidewalks, you can just step out of your front door, and you’ll be right next to your car. Literally, you’ll be able to take one step onto solid ground, then hop into your car. From the couch to your car, and viceversa. Air conditioning, reality shows, and foosball. Who needs the great outdoors? The Planet isn’t entertaining enough!! More TV shows!!

I*&#$(&@#($(@@#*** !!!

The mentality that’s working against your small project cost is ‘real’ transportation projects are for cars, buses, and trains and value into the billions. The contractors for these projects have more money to spend to ensure they have a steady stream of projects too. ‘Go big or go home’ mentality applies.

A few million to restripe streets in the districts with the least political contributors and small-time (if any) contractors keeping the project alive with the likely outcome being turning a bunch of car-centric voters into raging TEA-baggers is another reason why no one will touch such a fiscally responsible project.

You will have more luck selling cycling-friendly projects this way:
-Get the National Association of Realtors behind you with the rationale that cycling friendly streets increase neighborhood valuations. They have millions to of dollars with which they lobby. Maybe you can ride on their coattails in exchange for green-wrapping the NAR?
-Create a *massive* cycling project with the mindset that ‘bikes are toys’ so you can get contractors on your side and not violate common American sense.

You aren’t thinking big enough.

Any support should start with some simple information.

Where is the money going to come from? (Don’t speculate or guess, simply start with facts and then use them as a foundation for opinion)

Is this the only potential use for the “mystery funds” or are there other opportunities to spend it? (facts, not speculation or hypothetical)

If the cycling community gets a $30 million, 1.9 mile extension on the Marvin Braude Bike Path, does this have an impact on our perceived need in other funding requests. (ie., But you just got $30 million last week, now you want funding so you can ride across town?)

If this $30 million bike path extension of 1.9 miles were to be funded, what signal would it send regarding our ability to function with fiscal responsibility. Don’t look to the excesses of others to justify our behavior, nor to the behavior of others to justify the “looting” but simply help me understand how the City of Los Angeles can stand proud in the face of bankruptcy and say “We operate this city with a commitment to financial responsibility and accountability.”

All things considered, position this in the priorities of the cycling community and in the larger priorities of the City of Los Angeles. We’re not getting it done as we speak, is it a wise investment of our time to debate/pursue the Marvin Braude extension as LA fumbles in the middle of a Budget Crisis of Biblical proportions and the City of LA fumbles its relationship with the cycling community.

What are our priorities? Is this on the list?

However, over the years, we have repeatedly seen funds that could have been available to the city and state go to waste simply because no one asked for them. And oddly, I’ve seen projects get turned down by the feds because they didn’t cost enough. Crazy world, I know, but that’s the one we live in. So I’m a firm believer in asking; if they say no, we’re no worse off than we were before.

And the GOP reference was purely intentional. Cruel, I know; but still…

I don’t have the expertise to evaluate any of those. Light rail does seem to be more cost effective, and my friend Ken Alpern is kicking ass by getting it done all over the city. I definitely support him, and he’s shrewd about costs.

Any roadway widening is idiotic, so that’s my position on the 405. Putting light rail down the center of the 405 seems like a good project . . .

Look, right now one of the huge advantages cyclists have is that we are an extremely cost effective solution to transportation problems. We’re practically invisible from a budgetary standpoint, which is why one of Mowery’s best ways to shut us down is to complain of “political infeasibility”, because she can’t really talk about costs (except when she builds the LA River Path at $2 million/mile.) If we start having a big budget impact, well we lose that advantage, and we will have that much harder of a problem getting infrastructure built.

We’ve got huge budget problems at every level of gov’t – everyone should be a budget hawk when it comes to low return on investment.

I take it then that you also oppose building the Subway to the Sea, since it would cost billions — not millions — more than building it above grade. The money saved would be more than enough to build out every proposed bikeway in the city, and still turn Wilshire into the city’s first coast-to-Downtown bicycle boulevard.

And like me, you undoubtedly consider the $450 currently being spend to add a car pool lane over Sepulveda pass — at a cost of $45 million a mile — a waste, and have urged that the work be immediately halted in favor of a dedicated busway over the pass, which would move more people far more efficiently and affordably for decades to come.

Or is it only relatively extravagant bikeways you oppose?