How many bike shops are in my state? How much revenue and jobs do they generate? How many bikes have been sold in 2010?

Bicycles should be listed as national security equipment. When the roads are blocked with traffic, no trains are available, bicyclists and walkers can escape harm by using the trails connecting our communities.

Don’t get me wrong. I am quite concerned about the potential drying up of Federal dollars. Several years ago I was a member of the Los Alamos Transit Task Force that defined the parameters of our very successful county bus system and I still perform oversight duties as Chair of our County Transportation Board. Although we fund a considerable piece of that pie, we do count on Federal funds. Further, we are tied into the Northern New Mexico Regional Transit District. It relies on Federal funds including those directed through the NNM Pueblos. So this IS a big deal. Not to mention, the last big segments of our spiffy new bike lanes were funded in part with ARRA money.

But we have to cover our bases–surely nothing you and Andy have not already discussed. With so many new Congressmen (and women) elected on a pledge to cut Federal spending and reduce the scope of Federal mandates, we have our work cut out for us in convincing these folks what is still a viable Federal mandate. Personally, I would focus on those things that can be cast in terms of national mission. Perhaps a healthier and physically fit nation, as President Eisenhower challenged us in the fifies. We bang the drum on obesity and active living. This is not a new drum:

http://www.loti.com/sixties_history/The_Eisenhower_Years.htm

As for the rest? Well, we look to State and Local Government. And, we look to individual cyclists and cycling clubs/associations to depend more on themselves and their competence on existing facilities and less to Government funds that might not be there.

Like all things in Government, this tide will rise and fall. Cycling is not dependent on the tides. After all, we ride bikes, not sailboats.

For example?

As Mr. Moeur apparently agrees, cycling has gotten increased strength as a strongly local issue and this asset needs to be worked. Cyclists and pedestrians (and those who use mass transit) need to work their local governments and state legislatures to ensure good programs such as Complete Streets survive. The conservative mood in Congress is to reduce the size and scope of the Federal pie. Ok, fine, we need to work on the state and local pies.

We obviously don’t see eye to eye, but I’m going to refrain from getting personal about it. Have a nice evening.

@John Brookings-

I don’t know you, but with your lack of understanding of the importance of federal transportation funding for bicycling in the last blog post, and your lack of discretion by posting your screed above makes me think those in charge made the right call. You don’t seem fit to direct the LAB in these critical times. It reminds me when I saw Forrester listed as a candidate a few years back. The only reason I bothered voting for the board at all was to vote against him.

I’ve seen the pages you have about the board election. Your ‘reform’ group seems to talk about member this, member that. As a member I’m happy with what they’re doing. It’s been a few years I think, but I recall seeing a membership survey with high marks for LAB’s work. Is it possible that despite the rhetoric that most LAB members are happy with their work? Maybe it’s time for another membership survey.

I say without any *public* transparency, but I note that in my communication from the Governance Committee in which I was informed that I was not selected to be a nominee, I was not even told privately the reason I was not selected. I have therefore just written to the chair of that committee asking him to let me know how they felt I was unqualified. I do not intend to publish the detail of what he says, respecting the privacy of our email discussion, but I reserve the right to communicate my general level of satisfaction with the answer.

Two additional points: (1) Yes, there is a petition process available to rejected candidates, and I, Khal, and Eli Damon did try to use it to get on the ballot, but did not succeed. We have documented our efforts, and it has been the subject of some discussion whether the process itself is sufficiently accessible or reasonable. I don’t want to get into that discussion here, but simply bring it up. (2) The Governance Committee got 23 applications and approved 8 of them to run. Four of those were the incumbents, so out of the 19 *new* applicants, they chose only 4 to run. Surely the other 15 were not all unqualified? Assuming they were not, why the arbitrary cutoff? Why reject *any* who meet a minimum level of qualification? Why not let the membership truly decide? I would like to know the thought behind this decision. It too detracts from the claim of a membership-elected board.

Finally, it is true that the (bare) majority of the board is still member-elected (such as that is), but it should be noted that that percentage just decreased over the summer, with no input from membership and minimal communication after the fact. It decreased from 7 elected of 12 total (58%) to 8 elected of 15 total (53%). The bylaws in Article III Section 2 state that the board size may be increased to up to 17 members, but only in a “similar” proportion of elected to appointed directors as the original 7/12. Had the board made *two* of the 3 new positions created this summer elected, rather than just one, the proportion elected would then have been 60%. So rather than allowing the elected percentage to grow by 2%, they chose to shrink it by 5%. Do they think -5% is “close enough”, compared to +2%?