Re: Anti-cycling House bill - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

07-23-2003, 07:24 PM

On 23 Jul 2003 18:50:28 -0700, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (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?
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>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

07-24-2003, 06:40 AM

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:48:20 -0500, Scott Lindstrom wrote:

> Depends on the bike path, I suppose. The one near my house is
> swarming with bike commuters every day, especially in the
> summer. It is used for recreation, of course, as well, but
> if commuters are using it, why shouldn't federal monies be
> used for its construction (they were).

There are many cities where bike paths or MUPs end up being constructed in
part as "highways" of sorts for cyclists. Sacramento and Boise spring to
mind as two cities I've biked in that have cycling paths that allow you to
actually get around town much easier than you might be able to on roads.
I'm a street guy myself. My wife took me out to a trail here in Portland
recently, the Springwater Corridor, and I hated it. Too rough and too many
people riding areobars or pushing strollers. No shade either and it was
scorching. But I still see the use in the paths.

Besides, the money in question will also affect those of us who just want
the govt. to do what it can to help establish some semblence of legitamacy
of our right to be on the road period. If a painted white line does that
then that's fine with me.

Preston

07-24-2003, 01:48 PM

Scott Munro <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-24-2003, 02:14 PM

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" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> 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
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $695 ti frame

07-24-2003, 04:33 PM

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:48:39 GMT, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

07-24-2003, 07:53 PM

"GRL" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Also bike paths are primarily for recreation. Which is fine,
> except why should the federal tax-payer pay for you and me to have a place
> to play on our bikes? Sounds like a local matter to me. Our local bike trail
> was funded locally, as it should be.

And most car trips are optional and voluntary. So what? Lots of
cyclists use their bikes for transportation. Establishing why road
users are out on the roads is not a condition for their rights-of-way.

There are lots of limited-access motor roads where bikes, mopeds, and
pedestrians are not allowed. I see nothing wrong with providing some
thoroughfares that are closed to motor traffic.

If federal dollars pay for limited-access freeways, and they do, then
they should pay for sidewalks, bike lanes and paths, and greenways.
Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Chalo Colina

07-24-2003, 08:55 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Chalo) wrote:

>Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Common suspicion, but dead wrong. The very rich pay most of the taxes
in the US. In 1999, the upper 1% paid over 36% of all the taxes in
the US for example.

The bottom 50% (fifty percent!) paid about 4%.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

07-25-2003, 04:08 AM

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:55:05 GMT, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Chalo) wrote:
>> Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.
>
> Common suspicion, but dead wrong. The very rich pay most of the taxes

The suspicion, unfortunately, stems from the commonly heard news about tax-
breaks for them (god forbid they should keep some of their money!) and of
ways that they "avoid" paying taxes.

When you add it all up, the government gets more of their money than they
do. Consider a successful businessman; the government takes a big lop off
the money when the company gets it, then he decides to take some money out
of the company, so the government takes a big chunk of it as a dividend
tax, then he receives what's left, and the federal government takes 39% of
it in taxes, then the state takes another 10%; then he goes to buy, say, a
car with it, and pays 7% [in state of RI] sales tax, luxury tax [I don't
remember how much this is, or whether it was state or fed], and millions of
other taxes.

Believe me, "ultra-rich" people carry the weight of people like myself, and
I'm entirely aware of it. Punishing people for driving our economy is
stupid.

> in the US. In 1999, the upper 1% paid over 36% of all the taxes in
> the US for example.
> The bottom 50% (fifty percent!) paid about 4%.

As you move your percentages around, you find that the top 5% paid over 90%
of taxes. Further, the top 5% aren't filthy rich, they're small business
owners who finally have made it past the struggling-to-pay-the-next-bill-
and-keep-the-electricity-on stage.

Do you fit that category, Mark?

> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

07-25-2003, 06:47 AM

one of the six billion wrote:
[snip]
> It's true that roadways are the only cycling facilities needed, however
> without specific federal funds devoted to bicycling and pedestrian use,
> roadways are not built nor maintained to accommodate safe passage for
> anything but large amounts of fast moving cars.

Well .... while roadways in certain localities are sufficient for
cycling, the roadways in many localities are just to dangerous. Another
case of YMMV.

I do agree that roadways are not built nor maintained to accommodate
cyclists. Just take a look at the 3 feet or so of a street closest to
the curb: mixture of sand, rocks, glass, crumbly asphalt ...
you-name-it. Just yesterday I carted a push broom and machete to a
certain stretch of (urban) Town road that I cycle daily, whacked
branches and cleared piles of rocks, sand, and broken asphalt. A cop
actually stopped and asked "what the heck" I thought I was doing.

07-25-2003, 11:06 AM

Rick Onanian <spamsink@cox.net> wrote:

>As you move your percentages around, you find that the top 5% paid over 90%
>of taxes. Further, the top 5% aren't filthy rich, they're small business
>owners who finally have made it past the struggling-to-pay-the-next-bill-
>and-keep-the-electricity-on stage.

The figures I have (for the 1999 federal tax year) show the top 5%
paid "only" 55% of the tax - but I suspect they pay a lot more of the
"other taxes" (like real estate, luxury, etc.).

>Do you fit that category, Mark?

Heh heh heh. If I said that I do, I'd be instantly labeled a
oppressor of the common man... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame