Bikes are always nice, but I see them more as complementary to light-rail. In my experience from a student town, biking is prefered (among the cash-strapped, generally fit) students for distances under 30 minutes. Over 30 minutes busses are considered, with different cut off times for different people. Assuming a biking speed of 20km/h that gives an effective biking distance of 10km. Less if you need to haul groceries.
Please note that these are just numbers extrapolated from my own experience and might not be relevant to the area in question.
a CO2 payback period for the tunnel on the order of 90 years
And how long will it be used? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
20kmh (12mph) is reasonable on level terrain without a headwind ... but in this part of Ohio, for an old man like me a biking speed of 20km/h would be very optimistic ... with three decent hills along the way and a number of false flats, I make 7.5 mph when I am laboring, 9mph when I am going well ... the other direction, which is an easier ride, I can sometimes make more than 10mph.
Converting to the new money, that would be 12kmh for a bad day, to 14kmh for a good day, getting to work, 16kmh for a reasonably good day getting home.
And when I was cycle commuting in Newcastle, Oz, the train was a better complement than the bus, for any area served by the train. This was with a folding bike that I could put in the luggage rack of both the newer buses and the trains.
I am reasonably comfortable with the bike argument, once I have worked out the rest of the argument that it will be fitting into. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
A light-rail tunnel is being bored beneath Beacon Hill, just east of downtown Seattle. Seattle is a VERY hilly city and light rail needs some tunnels to be an effective method of transportation. And the world will live as one
