Even that stance has it's critics, see the comments section of the site.
However, it is a reasoned approach, and looking at all solutions.
For example, why no light rail (or heavy rail) along the Eastlink
reservation? If so many people want to travel that way, surely another
option would be useful?

Oh yeah, Doncaster railway, I remember!

If so many people don't want to travel that way, why build the road at
all? As in Oregon, there are lots of other projects needing money, even
in road terms, without considering the rest of society!

Graham B


>Hi All,
>
>So here's an example from Oregon in the US, of a bike advocacy taking a
>much stronger stance on a freeway project.
>
>http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/06/09/bta-crc-deis-lpa-position/
>
>The project in question is replacement freeway bridge over a major river,
>so a span similar in size to the Westgate, maybe longer. Being a
>replacement there is a lot of discussion about how much larger it should
>be than the existing bridge.
>
>The bike advocacy in question (the Bicycle Transportation Alliance...not
>the outfit in WA) has offered conditional support, including these
>conditions:
>-study an option with only 2 lane expansion alongside the proposed 4-6
>lane expansion
>-ensure bike and ped facilities are included
>-ensure that the project not rob funds from other regional transportation
>projects
>
>In my opinion, Bicycle Victoria could stand to learn a few things from
>this kind of stance. It's quite possible to contribute and comment
>positively but critically to road infrastructure projects as a bicycle
>advocacy, without being a lapdog for freeway proponents or 100% opposed
>(and therefore ignored). So for those BV folk on this list, please read,
>learn, and try to incorporate, as best you can in your role.
>
>http://www.bv.com.au/great-rides/41340/
>
>peace,
>-Alex