A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Anti-cycling House bill



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 24th 03, 02:55 AM
Laura Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

(Roly Poly Man) wrote in
om:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html

"July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
American.


What do you expect when the White House is staffed by former oil company
executives.
Ads
  #2  
Old July 24th 03, 04:24 AM
Scott Munro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

On 23 Jul 2003 18:50:28 -0700, (Roly Poly Man)
wrote:

Have any of you seen this... or is this just a bill that keeps
coming up annually and is old news?
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html

Short abstract:

"July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
American. That goes for you, too, you traffic-hazard pedestrians.
Fresh out of subcommittee, a new congressional transportation
appropriations bill will entirely eliminate some $600 million worth of
annual federal funding for bike paths, walkways and other such
transportation niceties in fiscal year 2004."


A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.

B) Why should there be a constant level of funding? Once a bike path
is built, it stays built, and only needs a small amount of
maintenance. If funding does not decrease eventually, then there is
serious corruption going on somewhere.

C) Why not use the public roadways instead of insisting on separate
facilities? Then the government (state and local, of course) could
spend the finite monies they gouge out of taxpayers on fixing the
roads which we all use.

--
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes--our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit
to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be
walking around."
-- G.K. Chesterton
  #3  
Old July 24th 03, 04:46 AM
GRL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?


--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Laura Bush" wrote in message
...
(Roly Poly Man) wrote in
om:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html

"July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
American.


What do you expect when the White House is staffed by former oil company
executives.



  #4  
Old July 24th 03, 05:18 AM
David L. Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:46:53 +0000, GRL wrote:

Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?


Quite a bit. Don't be misled into thinking that the only thing that pays
for roads ("road use" taxes are different, paid by truck licensing and not
by your average motorist) is gasoline tax. Only a small amount of the
cost of the roadway and maintenance comes from gasoline taxes, the
majority comes from local, state, and federal taxes which cyclists do, in
fact, pay. Turnpikes tend to be funded by real road use taxes, that is,
tolls, but those roads are specifically closed to cyclists, so do not
enter into the discussion.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
  #5  
Old July 24th 03, 09:02 AM
James H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

I advocate more bike lanes on new and existing roads.



"Roly Poly Man" wrote in message
om...
Have any of you seen this... or is this just a bill that keeps
coming up annually and is old news?
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html

Short abstract:

"July 22, 2003 | For every bike commuter who proudly pedals to work
under the mantra "one less car," Congress has a message for you: Get
back on the highway where you belong, burning fossil fuel like a real
American. That goes for you, too, you traffic-hazard pedestrians.
Fresh out of subcommittee, a new congressional transportation
appropriations bill will entirely eliminate some $600 million worth of
annual federal funding for bike paths, walkways and other such
transportation niceties in fiscal year 2004."



  #6  
Old July 24th 03, 10:01 AM
Zoot Katz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:02:32 -0400,
, "James H."
wrote:

I advocate more bike lanes on new and existing roads.


I advocate fewer cars. There's plenty of roads already.
--
zk
  #7  
Old July 24th 03, 10:48 PM
Mark Hickey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

Scott Munro wrote:

A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.


Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).

B) Why should there be a constant level of funding? Once a bike path
is built, it stays built, and only needs a small amount of
maintenance. If funding does not decrease eventually, then there is
serious corruption going on somewhere.


You mean like on most toll roads? For a great example, check out the
Garden State Parkway in New Jersey - the tolls were supposed to be
collected until it was paid for - which it was a long, long time ago.

C) Why not use the public roadways instead of insisting on separate
facilities? Then the government (state and local, of course) could
spend the finite monies they gouge out of taxpayers on fixing the
roads which we all use.


Bingo.

In the end, when there are budget cuts (what a concept!!), someone's
ox gets gored. There are thousands of good ways to spend taxpayers'
money, and it's government's responsibility to decide fairly which
ones have to suffer a bit. The concept of simply upping the taxes
until you can no longer think of ways to spend it all isn't going to
work in the US for a while... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
  #8  
Old July 24th 03, 11:14 PM
Michael S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

You obviously didn't read the article, Mark. The highway budget is actually
*increasing* by $2.5 billion, so the gored ox is rather targeted here, eh?

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
In the end, when there are budget cuts (what a concept!!), someone's
ox gets gored. There are thousands of good ways to spend taxpayers'
money, and it's government's responsibility to decide fairly which
ones have to suffer a bit. The concept of simply upping the taxes
until you can no longer think of ways to spend it all isn't going to
work in the US for a while... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame



  #9  
Old July 24th 03, 11:48 PM
Walter Mitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

"GRL" brightened my day with his incisive wit
when in he conjectured that:

Uh, how much road (or bike path) use taxes do you pay as a bicyclist?


Uh, is that the point you ass? Cyclists pay other taxes. just because we
don't have a car?? Bring on the bike tax. Due to lack of (a) pollution (b)
mass deaths (c) track degradation and (d) road rage, I suspect it would be
somewhat less substantial.

--
Walter Mitty.
  #10  
Old July 25th 03, 01:33 AM
Rick Onanian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Anti-cycling House bill

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:48:39 GMT, Mark Hickey wrote:
Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).


The feds don't build it; they give money to the state / local govt to do
it. It doesn't matter, municipal projects are just as inefficient at the
local level as the federal level, due to unions and politicians. Believe
me, I have experience with municipal projects.

I did have a two-page rant here, but I snipped it for the sake of the ng
and my own safety...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

--
Rick Onanian
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.