Comments on: What!? No Bikey.

By: l3wis

l3wis — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:34:26 +0000

I told you why. It’s about saving business owners money on insurance because FEMA went ape shit after Katrina. If city hall was concerned about our safety they would hire qualified PD, put in bike lanes and have a homeless shelter built already.

By: Costner

Costner — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:29:37 +0000

Don’t get me wrong… we need levees even if they are ugly. But do we need to raise them from levees designed for a 75 year flood level to levees designed for 100 year flood level? Probably – but do we need to act like if we don’t do anything in the next six months that disaster will happen?

I just think this is one of those issues being pressed harder than it should be for reasons other than flood control, and I’ve yet to figure out why.

By: Ghost of Dude

Ghost of Dude — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:38:01 +0000

Levees are good to have. For a good example, look at what’s happening in Fargo right now vs. what’s not happening in Grand Forks. Two cities, same river, but only one’s in the news.

By: l3wis

l3wis — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:26:28 +0000

That’s just it, the majority of properties in the affected area are retail and apartments. Munson would like you to think they are houses, but that’s poppycock. Remember city hall’s motto, “Big Business first – Citizens second”

By: Costner

Costner — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:00:05 +0000

especially floods that you can see coming for days and days and where the average home would be inundated with around 10 inches of water.

Let’s all be real – the only reason people are whining is because they don’t want to spend money on flood insurance. So we spend millions of tax dollars making the levees even uglier than they already are so Joe Homeowner can save a few hundred bucks a year.

By: l3wis

l3wis — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:49:28 +0000

. . . but the Hell with bicylists, real people die in floods!!!!!

By: l3wis

l3wis — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:48:47 +0000

Yeah, you can’t really go down Louise, because it goes nowhere. It looks like Kiwanis is your only option. You could of course put pontoons and paddles on your bike and when you get to the area, jump in the river.

Isn’t it funny we are building levees for a river that is about 14 inches deep most of the time?

By: Snakebite

Snakebite — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:15:31 +0000

It is my understanding both sides of the river will be worked on. This makes re-routing to the other side impossible. I also know of bikers who do use this route as a way to get to and from work. The weekend warrior rec riders will ride somewhere else – no big issue there, however, bicycle commuters are effectively screwed by this two year project.

By: l3wis

l3wis — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:17:25 +0000

That’s the problem with that stretch, you really can’t detour to the other side because there is an outcropping runoff creek before you get to the golf course – not sure what they will be able to do. But if you think the bicyclists are frustrated, how would you like to be a member at the HO. Nothing like big old dirt haulers blowing dust all over half the course, and depending on the wind, both sides. I remember last summer when they were working on the stretch by my work. There was constantly dirt and dust blowing everywhere. Good time to cancel the club membership and golf at Elmwood.

By: Ghost of Dude

Ghost of Dude — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:15:17 +0000

When they close roads, they put up detour signs and try and give people alternate routes. Really, it’s the least they could do for cyclists.