This website seems nothing more than a way for automobile lobbyists and city/state officials to relish the inconvenience and pain they cause bicyclists, even dream up new ways to marginalize and torture us further. They've convinced cyclists to abhor Critical Mass Rallies. Most cyclists here are also motorists who have to deal with poorly planned and worrisome roads. They therefore can't comprehend how a correctly designed, seamless, statewide bikenet would alleviate traffic, and that the only way to get there is to show your displeasure by rallying en mass. If you never ride downtown, they'll never accommodate you, so they win, and cyclists are forced to drive across this traffic nexus to go anywhere else in state instead of ride there.

Decent urban planning is a right which includes ample sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, free peripheral parking, full compliment of services downtown (cafes, markets, stores), police presence, subway/trolley connections, and uncluttered downtown traffic patterns not due to fear of tickets or tragedy.

But even ample free parking and easy access did nothing to bring out the area's lackluster bicycling community (except Barry) to a free, much appreciated, well publicized show with film, songs and videos dedicated to cycling culture. They don't deserve advocacy for transportation improvements or angst over shrinking shoulders.

Facts I read pinpoint pedestrian fatalities as "most likely" in parking lots with no walking infrastructure. They squeeze in cars at the expense of pedestrians. Over 90% of fatalities occur where they don't accommodate walkers.

1) The money is being mis-managed and project focus is not correct. A few things the report doesn't list is what types of projects the money was used for, what percentage went to actual infrastructure (perhaps we just have a much higher administrative cost), etc.

2) This area relies much more heavily on federal dollars than other places. It could be that other, safer areas, actually spend more money per person on pedestrian projects, yet we come out on top because a higher percentage of federal dollars were spent.

3) This area is merely making up for complete lack of money spent in previous years and, even though they are spending near the top now, they are behind the average when it comes to pedestrian infrastructure and have a gap to make up.

4) For some unknown reason, it is just that much more expensive to build out pedestrian infrastructure in this area.

For certain, I hope the attention from the Projo will call out for some politicians to answer why there is such a discrepancy.