genec

Then perhaps the country should stop trying to save the middle east and quit doing "nation building" somewhere other than home. Some of the biggest "dents" in the national budget go to keeping the war machine running... while things like local bridges and roads crumble.

And from a budgetary standpoint, that "hole" will never be filled, so no point in dragging it into discussions.

mconlonx

Steadily increasing spending for cycling?

But don't let facts get in your way...

Chicago Al 

I'm not going to answer that question, because it would be off-topic as far as cycling advocacy and the rules for this forum.

So you 'of course' want cycling infrastructure improved, but it actually sounds like you agree with Sen Toomey.

If that's the case, just man up and say so.

This 'all politicians are dumb' stuff gets tiresome, and it's an obvious ploy to get people to NOT advocate for their interests---like infrastructure.

CrankyOne

The problem is that money routed through the federal gov't looses much of its spending power. Much better for the federal gov't to tax a bit less, local gov't a bit more, and local gov't pay for local needs like sidewalks, bike paths, etc. For the same money I'm taxed I'd much rather have 200 miles of local cycletracks than 100.

headloss 

Sadly, I follow Toomey on FB as he is my jr. Senator. I really hope that he is not my Senator much longer... I can't stand the guy. He's a far-right darling that represents an ideology instead of his home state. Every other post he makes on FB is polarizing as he tries to keep the base happy; I hope he's digging his own political grave at the same time.

I do write to him often, but it seems like a pointless effort.

mconlonx

BS. For what it would cost at the local level, you'd balk at it, let alone your non-cycling neighbors. There's some things which need to happen top-down where minorities are concerned and we're one of them.

Chicago Al 

And this is part of a national transportation funding bill. Cranky may be right in an ideal sense but this is what can be done now with the way funding is allocated.

dynodonn 

Trying to get locals to raise their taxes is about impossible, the last such increase went to law enforcement and emergency services, good luck in trying to vote in tax increases for sidewalks or cycling infrastructure. The dirt paths that were finally replaced with sidewalks were there since the formation of the roadway, generations ago.

katsrevenge

Toomey is a peice of work. I've told that man i'm not voting for him so many times. I suppose once more won't hurt.

CbadRider

This thread is taking a more political path. If it continues it will be moved to P&R.

howsteepisit

It"s been political since post 1, its a debate about how Federal government should allocate funds, and what part states need to pick up. All highly political and based on philosophical leanings.

Rollfast

It's my fault...I took a vacation from A&S for awhile and did not keep the chortling dechortled. Thanks, cbad.

Chris516

Every time I hear garbage like this. I wonder what the politician/person espousing this dribble would think if they couldn't drive a car anymore.

They don't think about those with disabilities all their life, that make it impossible for them to drive.(While I chose not to get a drivers' license. I chose not to because there are too many morons on the road. Not because of my disabilities. I still could have obtained a drivers' license.) Then, What about all the military veterans that, due to physical combat injuries, can no longer drive. What about those combat veterans with severe PTSD, to the point that they can't drive because of their PTSD.

To me, the only aspect of Sen. Toomey's statement should remain noteworthy in the vein of A&S. Is not the party affiliation. Since both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this kind of behavior. But the egregious car-centric attitude. Cyclists' need better infrastructure, yet they still have a choice of where to ride. Pedestrians, unless they don't go on foot, don't have a choice on how to get from Point A to Point B(they can't 'take the lane', on foot).

dynodonn 

They would be like many in the general public, they would be using some form of motorized transportation to get around, whether it was mass transit or a personal vehicle driven by someone else, with little walking or bicycling involved.

genec

Or they could be rolling about in wheel chairs... which work best on smooth sidewalks. Or should the motorized wheelchair folks simply "take the lane?"

kickstart

The issue isn't about "car-centric" attitude, its about funding.
Many people believe federal transportation funds should only be used for national infrastructure like the national highway network, seaports, and airports, while local infrastructure such as city streets, sidewalks, and bike lanes should be the responsibility of the community they're in.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both theories.

mconlonx

I've seen that...

crawstuff

+1 Chris516
The national highway infrastructure should be more amenable to the non-motorized, but I guess that is more of an education and acceptance issue.

Chris516

Car-centric like I said

Chris516

Not 'would' but, 'would have to even though they didn't like it'.

dynodonn 

I seldom see very many wheelchair users out and about on my commutes, many travel by some form of transit service or specially modified personal vehicle that takes the wheel chair user from door to door, or as close as possible.

Rollfast

Our town has 'expansion joints' made of asphalt that are really just speed bumps, basically...smooth sidewalk would be an oxymoron.

genec

Is there a VA hospital in your town? My town ends up with lots of wounded vets... some of whom seem to like the independence of a powered wheelchair. They tend to use transit services when going long distances, and sidewalks for local errands. They like to fly the flag from their chairs.

dynodonn 

No VA hospital, but a large VA clinic, but still no powered wheel chair armadas traveling around my locale.

Rollfast

So you are dodging rascals in Rascals?