Jan 31--House bill reverses progress for bike/ped

[Dirty Tires]

It kind of irritates me that it is so difficult to walk anywhere, now the new transportation bill makes it that much more difficult.

The bill (soon to be available on transportation.house.gov) reverses 20 years of progress by:

• destroying Transportation Enhancements by making it optional;

• repealing the Safe Routes to School program, reversing years of progress in creating safe ways for kids to walk and ride bicycles to school;

• allowing states to build bridges without safe access for pedestrians and bicycles;

• eliminating bicycle and pedestrian coordinators in state DOTs;


Taken from here:
http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2012/01 ... liminated/


Contact congress before Thursday Feb 2:
http://www.capwiz.com/lab/issues/alert/ ... 76&type=TA

What irritates me most is the bridge thing; it makes it so difficult to actually get anywhere, and when gas hits $5/gallon, you can bet I'll be biking/walking more. So, I'm going to sit here like an agitated old man and type out a note!

[owosso bob]

The amendment went down 29 to 27 . Candice Miller voted no with the other 28 Republicans on the committee .

[SteveF]

The amendment went down 29 to 27 . Candice Miller voted no with the other 28 Republicans on the committee .

Thanks for the update, Bob--that's good news though distressing that it was so close! Which way did that Mike Rogers vote?

[owosso bob]

Steve he is not on this committee only Rep. Miller from Michigan . This is a huge loss for hiking and biking . Hope this is some way reversed before it goes to the full floor for a vote . Or else the President vetoes it .

[Loren]

The amendment went down 29 to 27 . Candice Miller voted no with the other 28 Republicans on the committee .

Thanks for the update, Bob--that's good news though distressing that it was so close!

The amendment discussed would have restored funding for non-motorized transportation, and the fact it did not pass is bad news, not good.

You really need a score card to keep up with this stuff.

[SteveF]

Dang.

[deuxdiesel]

Remember remember the 6th of November, when cyclists vote to Republicans dismember.

[utabintarbo]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

[deuxdiesel]

Fair question. If the funding never existed, I'd understand, but realistically it's a drop in the bucket compared to other spending. At a time when we should encourage biking and other non-motorized transportation for health, economical and environmental concerns, it just seems short-sighted to short-change this program. Personally, I'd love to commute by bike to work and back every day, as it only three miles each way, but the roads are narrow, busy, potholed and there is no shoulder or sidewalk. I don't need paved, lighted paths- just one where I didn't have to compete with cars would be nice.

[WishIcouldcatchmybreath]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

[utabintarbo]

Fair question. If the funding never existed, I'd understand, but realistically it's a drop in the bucket compared to other spending. At a time when we should encourage biking and other non-motorized transportation for health, economical and environmental concerns, it just seems short-sighted to short-change this program. Personally, I'd love to commute by bike to work and back every day, as it only three miles each way, but the roads are narrow, busy, potholed and there is no shoulder or sidewalk. I don't need paved, lighted paths- just one where I didn't have to compete with cars would be nice.

If promoting non-motorized transportation is the goal, they should then use money originally allocated for motorized transportation rather than spend new money. Given the monster overhang of debt this country is facing, adding even an alleged "drop in the bucket" is probably a Bad Idea.

[utabintarbo]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

How is this relevant, other than to muddy the waters? Even if we stipulate that funding roads is within the enumerated powers allocated to the Federal government, spending extra money for funding other types of projects, even if peripherally related, is still a Bad Idea.

[xcrdr]

I guess it's better to bail out a bunch of rich *beep* than keep a bunch of bike dorks safe. Pleaase don't respond to my mini-rant. I'm not smart enough to argue.

[Di_bear]

I guess it's better to bail out a bunch of rich *beep* than keep a bunch of bike dorks safe. Pleaase don't respond to my mini-rant. I'm not smart enough to argue.

One could argue that not arguing is actually quite smart.

[amadkins]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

The federal government should not. That's why we have states.