Comments on: Golf carts, Bike Plan at the UTC Tuesday http://austinontwowheels.org/2009/04/13/golf-carts-at-the-utc-tuesday/ The Online Magazine of Austin Cycling Culture Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:04:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: M1EK http://austinontwowheels.org/2009/04/13/golf-carts-at-the-utc-tuesday/comment-page-1/#comment-2843 M1EK Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:17:30 +0000 http://austinontwowheels.org/?p=5378#comment-2843 The key is NOT more planning; the key is more backbone. Get city council candidates to tell you why they allowed parking-on-both-sides instead of critical bike lanes on Shoal Creek last time, and why you can trust them to make the right decision next time. It's very easy to claim to be in favor of bicycles (and puppies!). It's cost-free; and meaningless; and you can get a lot of your political troublemakers tied up in writing plans instead of bugging you at council meetings. It's also very easy to ignore all that stuff and vote in favor of reactionaries at the neighborhood level when interests conflict. Or to vote in favor of projects like Seaholm instead of the better Pfluger bridge extension. Basically, every time any other interest conflicted with the interests of transportation cyclists, the City Council chose the other guys - and a new plan does nothing to change that other than make you waste your energy where it does precisely zero good. So maybe when the plan comes up for a vote this time, maybe actually have the guts to bring up the times in the past where the plan precisely and clearly said exactly what should happen and the City Council decided to do something different anyways. Ask them why we should trust that it'll be different this time around. The key is NOT more planning; the key is more backbone. Get city council candidates to tell you why they allowed parking-on-both-sides instead of critical bike lanes on Shoal Creek last time, and why you can trust them to make the right decision next time.

It’s very easy to claim to be in favor of bicycles (and puppies!). It’s cost-free; and meaningless; and you can get a lot of your political troublemakers tied up in writing plans instead of bugging you at council meetings.

It’s also very easy to ignore all that stuff and vote in favor of reactionaries at the neighborhood level when interests conflict. Or to vote in favor of projects like Seaholm instead of the better Pfluger bridge extension. Basically, every time any other interest conflicted with the interests of transportation cyclists, the City Council chose the other guys – and a new plan does nothing to change that other than make you waste your energy where it does precisely zero good.

So maybe when the plan comes up for a vote this time, maybe actually have the guts to bring up the times in the past where the plan precisely and clearly said exactly what should happen and the City Council decided to do something different anyways. Ask them why we should trust that it’ll be different this time around.

]]>