Two Spoke Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
DX's Biggest Member
Joined
·
793 Posts
I wish; but likely, it's just spitting in the wind. Any good that comes of this will be overturned by the next guy, or the one after that, and the coffins will re-assert their dominance. There's just too much general opposition to the Obama administration and all its elements. It's become the puerile example of 'shooting the messenger'.

I will, nevertheless, be watching this, and if any effort can be made on my part to contribute, I will do so. After all, if you don't stand against something, you condone it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
When I used to live in a fairly small (50,000 population) and went to Planning meetings I would hear VERY negative feedback from planners over sidewalk and cycling lanes despite the public wanting it. Baffles my mind why city planners would not be gung ho about facilitating cyclists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Dean, is it possible the reason they want to be gung ho is they don't wnat to offend the majority, which are motorists? If this is the case why? Usually, when it comes to political correctness not offending the minority is more important than the majority? I know cyclists are not a protected class and am not suggesting we should be. but, and I know I'm preaching the choir here, we should get some consideration where right now we get next to none.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
Well as cities continue to expand more attention despite who it offends should be put on transit other than motorized. Otherwise you end up like Austin which is a mess with no real solutions in store.
 

·
The Bearded Wonder
Joined
·
561 Posts
I don't really know where I stand on this issue because I don't know enough about politics and taxes to know for sure what's going on. The concern that I have is that from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the roadways are funded by car and fuel taxes. So, from a budget and planning perspective, I could see how cyclists wouldn't be at the top of the agenda. It's all about the $
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Most cyclists own motor vehicles. roadways are not just funded by car and fuel taxes. They are also funded by income taxes, other sales taxes even property taxes.

Think about it this way:
1. How do most people get to/from work? By motor vehicle. They work earn a living, are paid a wage and are charged income taxc. Therefore a portion of their income taxes pay for the roadways they use to go to/from work.
2. When you purchase something at a store, say a bag of dog food, cat litter, a new snow shovel to clear snow in the winter, or a new wardrobe, those products had to get to the store somehow. Typically by truck or other type of motor vehicle. That is wear and tear on the roadways so a portion of sales taxes are used to fund roads.
3. Your place of residence is on a street of some sort. Even if you rent vs. own. You use the roadway to get to/from home, if you live in the city you have utility lines under and above the roadway which require maintenance and puts wear and tear on the roadways. Therefore property taxes also help fund roads.

I even venture to say funds from sales, property and income taxes provide more money than fuel taxes and monies from purchasing a motor vehicle.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top