Don't get me wrong - Portland still has plenty of traffic tie-ups. However, we have a vibrant and expansive transit system. Our light-rail is incredible and always busy, and the many transit hubs link to bus routes that can get you anywhere you need to be.

Of course our extensive network of bike lanes really helps keep the cars moving. One only needs to stand near either of the bike-heavy bridges crossing the Willamette to see the utilization of our bike network during the daily commutes.

You can't demand infrastructure and respect as a road user, and still consider it ok to break traffic laws.

A significant portion of the City Council would disagree with you.

What bothers me about the site sometimes, and certain elements of this community in general, is the attitude that biking is the superior mode. This attitude gets in the way of attempts to create a real bike infrastructure (You can't demand infrastructure and respect as a road user, and still consider it ok to break traffic laws. You can have one or the other.)
Also, this attitude can sometimes distract from a focus on mass transit, which is vastly more important than bicycles in terms of defining the city's transportation structure.

Still, I like this site. Keep up the good work.

http://www.google.com/search?q=fast+lane+blog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

If you notice GM has a fast lane blog too.
I think I would change my blog name. Hard to incorporate all road users if a certain billion dollar company which produces automobiles and trucks has the same title.

1. Obama has indicated that he sees high speed rail as his administration's signature transportation initiative.

2. When you want legislation to move quickly through Congress, when it's a big priority, you fast track it. You don't put it on the fast lane.

Ray LaHood: Getting America's transportation policy back on track.

Metaphorically, it's a freakin' no-brainer.

And anyway, "The Fast Lane" was Mary Peters' blog. Blech.

PS. Cities tend to evolve around rail, not the other way around.

(Clarence who once again is trying to support BRT and light rail and commuter rail all at the same time.)

As Jaime Lerner demonstrated in Curitaba with his bus system that behaves like a subway, one need not build entirely new infrastructure for efficient mass transit. After all, reuse of existing infrastructure is the best form of sustainability.

Rail is more expensive; less flexible (we can't change train routes to evolve with the city's needs); and takes more time, energy, and materials to implement.

We just need to repaint the lines for dedicated bus lanes and buy more buses. We can retake the fast lane by keeping cars off of it.

More on Lerner and Curitaba:
http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20080529/learning-from-lerner

hopefully SB will take it as constructive criticism

I have a hard time reconciling this sentence with the rest of the post.

To start, let me say that I think the content on this blog is mostly excellent. Perhaps that's why I suffer through the way you all write (well, maybe not you ALL -- mostly just Mr. Naparstek). For the sake of those of us who are not friendly with the writers of this blog, online or otherwise, and just have an interest in your content, please spare us the extra special glimpses into mundane details that would be better suited to your personal Facebook status updates.

If your vision for Streestblog is to celebrate Brooklyn bike culture (and your self-styled celebrity status in it), then proceed. But if you want to be relevant anywhere else and to anyone else, you need to expand your view. I often feel like Streetsblog epitomizes the lack of broad vision needed to build real coalitions for transportation policy change -- if you want to really advocate for the kind of change you discuss, get outside of Park Slope for a few hours (and not just physically!).

In the meantime, I guess I'll just keep trying to skim past all the self-congratulatory "my multi-ethnic Brooklyn block and bicycle commute define me and make me a moral person!" glimpses into the writers' lives (especially on your godforsaken Twitter feed, which I've finally given up hope on and stopped following) and try to get to the real stuff.

I guess what I'm driving at is: what is the point of this blog? Lifestyles of the Two-Wheeled Smug and Hipster, or serious Transportation Policy Advocacy?

I just got back from filming some video in Chicago. To get some nice cityscape shots, I went up in the John Hancock building. Chicago is such a great city, and though there was traffic here and there it wasn't until I got up high above that you really see what Livable City and sane transportation policy advocates are up against...

530 PM miles and miles of gridlock as far as I could see from the tower. The video is daunting and this is just one city, and a few minutes window on one day of the year. On my way to the airport the next morning (as the Blue Line runs along the highway) just bumper to bumper traffic for miles. Never ending. Multiply this by every city, every day, and you realize that the American public needs to be presented with a better and more convenient option to get them out of their cars.

So "Fast Lane" of course seems a more logical name to those with a windshield perspective. Even those spouting the right words and policy. I think one day I need to go up in a helicopter and get footage of what all the congested freeways look like coming into NYC. That would be sobering.