|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|