Originally Posted by
jgadamski
..... I have seen in recent years rural areas trying to leverage their experience into a form of economic development. There are incredible trails between near Spokane WA, through Idaho into Montana: the Coeur d' Alene trails, the Hiawatha and the Milwaukee Rd.. for example. I look forward to a week of riding when I can get the time.
But.. are trails the measure of good bike friendliness? Or is safely getting to your daily stuff: work, school, shopping, etc the measure? .....
Who own these trails? And what is that departments mission. That is the standard to which we measure the success of any accomplishment.
Here in Ohio..... most trails are rust-belt left-over rails-to-trails. Often the paths are still owned by some rail road, or corporate holding concern. Then given or lent (on long-term loan) to a county or state park system.
The park departments are charged with the responsibility of providing recreational space and faculties. They do a fine job.
But downtown... here in the city... wide berm bike lanes and sharrows are owned and operated by the
city funded transportation dept. They paint the lines, put up signs, patch the holes and sweep the streets. They also do a fine job.
They are like
apples and oranges.
Originally Posted by
CrankyOne
There is much more infrastructure (lane miles of road, sewer, water supply, etc) per capita and per taxable unit in suburban areas than urban. However, the taxable value is greater in suburban areas as well. Both are facing fiscal problems with how development has been allowed over the past 70 years (largely not sufficient tax base to support the infrastructure).
No. I understand the concept. But factually that isn't correct. Many states, cities, towns, villages, and rural areas (townships) are financially in fine shape. Of course... these are all conservative areas that practice good solid spending policies.
Bad management causes poor spending... not growth.