Thread: By the numbers
View Single Post
Old 01-27-12, 02:37 PM
  #12  
dynodonn 
Banned
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1268 Post(s)
Liked 78 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc
Well, by that same argument pedestrian and cycling infrastructure *needs* less funding simply because it lasts longer and can support a larger number of "trips" for a given amount of money (as pedestrians and cyclists are smaller than cars.)
It also be that more road maintenance/building funding has not kept up with inflation and is being diverted away from new/upgraded ped and cycling infrastructure.


Our state's road funding priority is first to pay their service debts on borrowed money for roadway construction/maintenance, then whatever is left goes towards infrastructure.

Last edited by dynodonn; 01-27-12 at 03:32 PM.
dynodonn is offline