Mikael has made a couple recent posts concerning bike infrastructure in cities other than Copenhagen. In one such post, he mentions that it's tiring to hear "it's just Copenhagen," or "It's Copenhagen and the Netherlands, but nowhere else," as if those are the only places that "get it" when it comes to the desirability of bike-specific urban infrastructure.

He makes a good point--many other cities are beginning to get the idea, and make the investments. I want very much to see Louisville "get it," in ways that our No-Longer-Mayor Abramson started to see.

It takes a LOT of political will power--usually more than can be utilized in one term of office. There are many "anti-cyclists" in the local community, and much of the infrastructure discussion is focused on the Ohio River Bridges Boondoggle instead of surface-level projects that would cost less to do, cost less to maintain, and serve more people--in part by taking traffic OFF the existing Interstates and thus reducing pressure to build Interstate bridges.

That lowly little old me can see this but lofty politicians cannot says something, but I don't know what it is. Despite letters written to various people who are at least titular leaders in the community, I feel like I'm standing in front of a steamroller with a cap pistol. Or one of those gag guns seen in the clown shows that spits out a flag with the word BANG on it. The powers that be want big bridges, they want to spend a ton of money before creating big bridges, and they seem to want to drag out the pre-construction BS long after it's due to be done.

I suppose the delay could be okay with me if it really gave me the feeling that we could impress upon the powers that be that the idea of having two more Interstate-level bridges is more a 1950s-era solution than a 2011-and-beyond solution. Gas will likely never be as cheap as $2/gallon again, as it was when the two-bridge thing started really gathering steam. It seems more reasonable that we could build several bridges on order of the Clark Memorial Bridge for about the same money, connecting neighborhoods instead of interstates, and improve traffic flow to a far greater degree compared to two Interstate bridges. It also seems that if one such bridge is taken out of service due to some unforeseen event like a barge getting loose and hitting the supports, the traffic diversion would foul up more bridges by less rather than REALLY fouling up one bridge (this is about what happened to the Sherman Minton bridge in 2009--inspectors cleared the bridge for use shortly after the event, but that morning's drive time was BRUTAL for a lot of people).

Such smaller bridges would allow for more bicycle-friendly travel across the river, as well.

But what do I know? I am one of those crazy folks who rode his bike to work this morning, into the teeth of a headwind the whole way, thinking that if the wind continues until I go home I'll have a SWEET tailwind and a fast trip home!