I’m sending a letter to my congressmen over this idiocy (I cut the article from Velonews):
House Panel Votes To Axe All Bike Projects In 2004
What is this? I just saw this story today on Bicycle Retailer and Industry News*: *
** Washington, D.C., July 14, 2003
A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Friday approved a bill that would cut funding for transportation alternatives like bike paths in order to bolster highway construction spending.
*The House Appropriations subcommittee approved a $90 billion bill for transportation programs, the U.S. Treasury and several other federal agencies for fiscal 2004. *
*The bill would completely eliminate so called transportation enhancement projects like bike paths and rail-to-trail conversions. Some $600 million was allocated for such projects this year; the subcommittee opined that such money would be better spent next year on highway construction and maintenance. *
*If approved, total highway spending would top $34 billion in 2004, some $4.8 billion above what President Bush requested and $2.5 billion more than what was spent in 2003. *
*The bill also included $580 million for Amtrak, $320 million less than what President Bush requested and less than a third of the $1.8 billion the company’s managers said it needs to remain in business. Amtrak, a for-profit federal corporation, has never had a profitable year in its 30-year history. It is now $4 billion in debt. *
*All measures in the bill would go into effect for fiscal year 2004, which begins Oct. 1, 2003. *
In North America - the Car is King. It’s slowly becoming more and more expensive. It’s slowly using up a limited reasource. It’s slowly(quickly) increasing pollution. It’s slowly taking up more and more time with longer and longer commutes. It’s slowly killing us and our quality of life, but it still gets the funding. It makes absolutly no sense, but that’s the way things work in North America.
Who has better lobbyist - GM or Trek ? Who can make larger “contributions” - Shell or Hed ? Do you think more old fat members of Congress ride on a Cannondale or in a Lincoln ?
In a related move, the Department of Health and Human services and Surgeon General have redesigned the “Food Pyramid” and redefined the term “obesity” to make it a desirable condition. Under the new plan the Federal Government now fully supports, and is moving to mandate, that the populace in general watch a minimum of 3 hours of TV per day, avoid any activity that produces “toxic sweat” (such activities include using stairs, carrying luggage, playing with children, and any sex that’s worth a damn), and get all nutrition guidance from Frito Lay.
For a fast and simple way to send a letter to your representative urging them to pay attention to this, you can go to http://econstituent.votenet.com/lab which has letters pre-written for you. You just fill in your address and it’ll send the email to your representative.
Washington, D.C., July 14, 2003
A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Friday approved a bill that would cut funding for transportation alternatives like bike paths in order to bolster highway construction spending.
If they were to do it right, this could be a good thing. Bike paths SUCK! They need to incorporate real bike lanes on roads. Since they’re supposedly doing this for road construction, now is the time to put in extra lanes for bikes. Anyone in California (at least San Diego) knows how wonderful those bike lanes are compared to bike paths.
Having said that, I’m sure that’s not their plan. Yep, that money will just disappear forever.
If they were to do it right, this could be a good thing. Bike paths SUCK! They need to incorporate real bike lanes on roads. Since they’re supposedly doing this for road construction, now is the time to put in extra lanes for bikes. Anyone in California (at least San Diego) knows how wonderful those bike lanes are compared to bike paths.
Yeah, it’s good for us but not for any other normal citizen. Yesterday, I went running with my friend who took his 2nd grade son who rode his bike in front of us. He definitely has that speed urge from his father but he would have almost certainly been hit by a car if he was going down a bike lane on a road. Now if they put a nice wide sidewalk next to the road as well, hey, I’m all for it. =)
Yesterday, I went running with my friend who took his 2nd grade son who rode his bike in front of us.
2nd graders and runners are exactly why I won’t I won’t ride on bike paths.
The difference is that bike paths can be seen as leisure spending, but real bike lanes are a viable commuting alternative. It isn’t likely that you can ride a bike path to your job, but many people do use bike lanes for commuting. It would be great to have both, but given the choice I’d much rather see real bike lanes.
If they were to do it right, this could be a good thing. Bike paths SUCK! They need to incorporate real bike lanes on roads. Since they’re supposedly doing this for road construction, now is the time to put in extra lanes for bikes. Anyone in California (at least San Diego) knows how wonderful those bike lanes are compared to bike paths.
No, it’s not a good thing. Transportation enhancement funds cover all bike facilities. Road agencies determine whether paths and/or on-road facilities are implemented for any given project.
I agree that paths are not as good as lanes. But it is better than nothing. In my town we often have an situation with the bike advocates that is ‘our way or nothing’… no compromising. So we often end up with nothing.
Bike lanes are absolutly much more useful than bike paths. Bike lanes are cheaper and require less right of way but still they cost money. If funding for bicycle projects is cut, bike paths or lanes won’t happen.
I think that education is equally important to the survival of cyclists. If motorists know that cyclists have a legal right to be on the road they will be less likely to try to run us over. I think the California Bicycle coalition got the legislature to approve a question about bicylists on the state drivers exam. IMHO that is important. I’d rather share the lane with a motorist that knows I belong there than be in a 3 foot bicycle lane with a ignorant motorist coming up from behind.
I’d rather share the lane with a motorist that knows I belong there than be in a 3 foot bicycle lane with a ignorant motorist coming up from behind.
Not me. The bike lanes in San Diego are so huge that you’re usually completely out of traffic. For someone to hit you, they almost have to do it on purpose.
In Michigan, for example, where there are no bike lanes and no shoulders, even good drivers create dangerous situations when traffic is heavy. I, for example, am a cyclist and a driver, and I still get very uncomfortable when trying to pass a cyclist in traffic where there is absolutely no shoulder for him and no room for me to safely pass. It’s dangerous for everyone involved.
Not to mention that bikes on roads with no bike lanes causes traffic to back up. If it’s even for one second, it makes motorists hate bikes just that much more. No thanks, I’ll take bike lanes.
For me it’s not a question of GM or TREK( Although, I suspect it’s a big factor), it’s about common sense. But when it comes to cars, there seems to be little or no common sense in North America. How else to explain why someone would spend $50,000 on a massive, gas guzzling SUV, that never leaves the pavement and has no more room than a standard sedan!
But when it comes to cars, there seems to be little or no common sense in North America. How else to explain why someone would spend $50,000 on a massive, gas guzzling SUV, that never leaves the pavement and has no more room than a standard sedan!
…because the Bush tax cut makes obese SUVs fully tax-deductible.
the intent of the tax cut is an exemption for vehicles over 4000 lbs - it is for agricultural sorts but John Deeres do not rank in the burbs. It occured way before Bush and the oil dude (our vp i think?).
Actually it’s 6,000 pounds and Hummers qualify, along with other large SUV’s. Bush’s business incentive plan after 9/11 increased that vehicle deduction by 30%. Bush’s latest tax cut plan raises the deduction significantly yet again.