We welcome your comments. Send them to email@example.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com, our Facebook page, or our Twitter feed, @roccitynews. Comments of fewer than 350 words have a greater chance of being published, and we do edit selections for publication in print. We don't publish comments sent to other media.
Stop thinking everyone needs to go to college; it is a turnoff to those who do not identify with that path. Instead, open your minds to the fact that we will continue to need trades people and such. DITCH THE COMMON CORE and let teachers teach. Teaching is an inspiration that gets shut down with the Common Core foolishness.
I think it's great that our infrastructure is becoming more bicycle friendly. However, there aren't enough bicycle commuters to justify such expenditures. I wonder what's being done, from an anti-poverty perspective, to help the able-bodied jobless?
We need some kind of affirmative action that would give priority to someone able to bike to work. What good are bike lanes that are rarely used?
To those who suggest that bike infrastructure improvement expenditures are not justified by bicycle traffic volume: This is usually the case in regions both within North America and worldwide which are beginning to establish multimodal transportation support.
The volume of pioneers does not justify the investment, but invariably, the pioneers PLUS the investment in infrastructure result in a rapid and self-reinforcing increase of bike and pedestrian traffic. This not only reduces congestion, it also makes affected neighborhoods more livable and desirable for business.
The economic not to mention the social benefit to the streets which have bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can be shown to greatly exceed the expenditure.
I am an avid city cyclist and have no problem navigating across a street. I do however have problems with busy roads with no shoulder. My suggestion for the city would be to create more Park and Ride locations that are bike-lane accessible. This would give recreational riders along with commuters from the burbs more enjoyable access to city biking. It really is easy and fun to bike through the city!
The challenge with increasing bike lanes and lane widths in general is that this costs far more money, planning, time, and the agreement of other road users then the traffic signal cyclist-sensing cameras do (News, January 6). Far more. I agree that when streets are redone, any extra lane width should be considered. But expect strong resistance from landowners.
To get new riders to consider using their bikes as transportation (and not just recreation) often requires a lot of "activation energy" in the sense of making these less-comfortable-in-traffic riders be at ease and have a sense of safety. These cameras are a low-cost step in that direction. But by no means the last step.
I am thinking the dismantling of these LDC's is, at the very least, a diversion (News, January 8, 2016). If these LDC's were to continue and be investigated, what would be found? Is this a preemptive move to prevent more investigations and questions? Is this [Cheryl] Dinolfo's way of distancing herself from what may be lurking behind the scenes?