Cycling related policies?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 67272 wrote:

Chris_s’ point is still valid though. The General Assembly just passed a tax increase for transportation funds, so something real is about to happen as that revenue comes in. The governor will have a huge impact on how that money is spent.

The governor has relatively little direct influence. His influence is primarily in selecting the transportation board (etc). If you think either candidate is spending any thought right now on who to appoint to the transportation board, or that the board seats will be assigned on a careful consideration of transportation policy vs rewards to donors, I have a bridge to sell you. So I stand by my assertion that nothing in the candidates’ platforms will tell you a thing about their actual transportation policy. You’re better off guessing based on how they are likely to interact with the assembly, and what cronies they’re likely to have based on their contributors.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 67325 wrote:

The governor has relatively little direct influence. His influence is primarily in selecting the transportation board (etc).

That’s the influence I was referring to.

If you think either candidate is spending any thought right now on who to appoint to the transportation board, or that the board seats will be assigned on a careful consideration of transportation policy vs rewards to donors, I have a bridge to sell you.

I didn’t say they were thinking about it now, or even that they would carefully consider it. If it’s about nothing more than donors (which I don’t buy), then I’d rather have McAuliffe’s donors on the board than Cuccinelli’s.

So I stand by my assertion that nothing in the candidates’ platforms will tell you a thing about their actual transportation policy.

I didn’t bring up their platforms.

You’re better off guessing based on how they are likely to interact with the assembly, and what cronies they’re likely to have based on their contributors.

Yes.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 67326 wrote:

I didn’t bring up their platforms.

I guess you forgot what the thread topic was?

[lordofthemark]

Its tempting to ignore pols’ platforms, but sometimes they fool you and stick to them

I also would suggest its not only who they pick for the CTB, but also who they pick to be sec of transport.

USDOT has been a different place since 2009 (not different on everything, not radically different, but different). And I think that was, to some degree, predictable.

I would also suggest that Va policy has been different from what was being advanced under Kaine. again, in ways that were, at least to some degree, predictable.

I mean the va legislature wont change much. The legislature, which one might expect to divide by interest group, donors, or regions, has lined up on partisan lines on transportation to a surprising degree. I am not sure that pattern will continue, but I dont see the justification for thinking that what policies a future governor will pursue will be a complete crap shoot.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 67336 wrote:

I guess you forgot what the thread topic was?

“Cycling related policies”, not “platforms”, and what others seem to be arguing is that the new governor’s appointments will guide his policies. I don’t see that as inconsistent with the topic thread.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 67344 wrote:

“Cycling related policies”, not “platforms”, and what others seem to be arguing is that the new governor’s appointments will guide his policies. I don’t see that as inconsistent with the topic thread.

Well, the original ask was whether there were any substantive differences in their stated positions. Many of the replies are basically along the lines of “the Republican will likely align with his national party and either ignore or be actively hostile toward bikes”. I think there’s some truth to that (judge a man by the company he keeps) but it doesn’t really further a reasoned discussion or address the stated problem. The only thing that immediately comes to mind in the record of either is that cuccinelli came out with support for the W&OD stop signs as AG (which may be reason enough to vote against him).

[Kolohe]

Cuccinelli wants everyone on a bike to wearing a burka, McAuliffe wants everyone to buy a bike made in East Asia where he gets 10% of the gross proceeds, and Sarvis thinks bicyclists shouldn’t have to obey any traffic laws – but they do have to strike a Coasian bargain with each and every SUV in the sharrows.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 67356 wrote:

Well, the original ask was whether there were any substantive differences in their stated positions. Many of the replies are basically along the lines of “the Republican will likely align with his national party and either ignore or be actively hostile toward bikes”. I think there’s some truth to that (judge a man by the company he keeps) but it doesn’t really further a reasoned discussion or address the stated problem. The only thing that immediately comes to mind in the record of either is that cuccinelli came out with support for the W&OD stop signs as AG (which may be reason enough to vote against him).

I don’t see anyone who has said he should be judged by the national party positions (I don’t think the national GOP really has a position, and I guess Mike Bloomberg is still a registered Republican, and I would be delighted to have a Va Gov that pro-bike) I mentioned the changes at USDOT (under Ray Lahood, also a registered Republican, BTW) only to suggest change on transportation is possible, and is not unrelated to stated positions.

The evidence that McAullife MAY be better than Cuccinelli on bikes are 1. The items in their online platforms – I count two mentions by McAuliffe, and none by Cuccinelli 2. The likelihood of alignment with the Virginia parties (NOT the national parties). 3. The possibility that attitudes toward cycling may be influenced by views toward AGW and related enviro issues (but I am quite aware there are policy reasons to support biking that have zero to do with AGW, and so its quite possible for someone who does accept the existence of AGW to support biking as a matter of policy.

[jabberwocky]

Probably the biggest argument you can make is that VA Democrats are more closely aligned with the more afluent, urban areas of the state (NoVA, Richmond and VA beach) whereas the Republicans are more closely aligned with the rural areas. The urban areas are where most of the people who care about cycling infrastructure live, so Democrats are more likely to pander to that group.

I don’t think either candidate really cares much either way though.

[mstone]

And the problem with that sort of reductio is that it encourages Republicans to simply write off cyclists as lost votes, and it gives Democrats no incentive to actually work on cyclist issues because they can just assume the votes. Remember that some of the most anti-cyclist legislation of the last session was sponsored in the senate by a Democrat representing Arlington (Favola) basically because she didn’t care enough to understand the legislation or consult with those affected.

[baiskeli]

@Kolohe 67357 wrote:

Cuccinelli wants everyone on a bike to wearing a burka, McAuliffe wants everyone to buy a bike made in East Asia where he gets 10% of the gross proceeds, and Sarvis thinks bicyclists shouldn’t have to obey any traffic laws – but they do have to strike a Coasian bargain with each and every SUV in the sharrows.

Well done!

I have a much cruder version but I will exercise what little restraint I have and not post it here.

[baiskeli]

@jabberwocky 67374 wrote:

Probably the biggest argument you can make is that VA Democrats are more closely aligned with the more afluent, urban areas of the state (NoVA, Richmond and VA beach) whereas the Republicans are more closely aligned with the rural areas. The urban areas are where most of the people who care about cycling infrastructure live, so Democrats are more likely to pander to that group.

That’s the more cynical way of stating it. You can switch it around, though, and simply say that urban voters that care about cycling are more likely to support candidates who care about cycling.

By the way, whatever the reason, this trend is national. In most states, it is easy to find Democrats who support cycling and Republicans who are hostile to it than vice versa. In Congress, 115 of the members of the Congressional Bike Caucus are Dems while 36 are Republicans.

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 67380 wrote:

In Congress, 115 of the members of the Congressional Bike Caucus are Dems while 36 are Republicans.

If we had that high a portion of the GOP members of the House of Delegates sympathetic to VBF, we’d have passed the legislation we needed last session.

I don’t see this is a national GOP issue, so much as an issue within the Commonwealth statehouse.

I think it may have to do with certain individual legislators – Bill Carrico on the one hand, Chap Petersen on the other – who then get deference from others in their caucus.

I agree with MStone that assuming a pol’s position based only on party affiliation or geography relieves them of actually supporting the positions. That is why I tried to supplement my sense of Va (not national) partisan alignment, with other hints.

Though its still striking how, other than on the Favola bill, things went so much by party lines on bike issues in Richmond last session. And the Favola bill was supported virtually across the board in the legislature, including by legislators generally strongly pro-biking. My understanding is that this was mostly pushed by Loudoun County Govt, and neither party wants to alienate that swing county.

[jabberwocky]

@baiskeli 67380 wrote:

That’s the more cynical way of stating it. You can switch it around, though, and simply say that urban voters that care about cycling are more likely to support candidates who care about cycling.

Whats that quote? “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”

There are probably some politicians who genuinely care about cycling infrastructure (likely the ones who actually ride bikes). The majority see it as something visible they can do to pander to the demographic thats likely to vote for them. Practically it doesn’t really matter. A politician who is willing to pander to you is always better than one who won’t.

[baiskeli]

@lordofthemark 67385 wrote:

I agree with MStone that assuming a pol’s position based only on party affiliation or geography relieves them of actually supporting the positions.

I agree with that too. It’s good advice in politics in general.

I wasn’t arguing that one should vote strictly by party, just observing that there’s a partisan divide on cycling issues.

Though its still striking how, other than on the Favola bill, things went so much by party lines on bike issues in Richmond last session. And the Favola bill was supported virtually across the board in the legislature, including by legislators generally strongly pro-biking. My understanding is that this was mostly pushed by Loudoun County Govt, and neither party wants to alienate that swing county.

Perhaps, but a delegate from Loudoun County should have taken the lead instead.

[Author]

Posts