Originally Posted by SugarPILL

ouch, sorry people, I just pasted the email and title I was sent from a friend who was a bit enraged and was only able to read a bout 1/3 of it here at work... I am sorry I should have read the whole thing down..my apologies for the tone it may have rang.


j

Originally Posted by Cynikal

Way to be the internet police that no one called.

Originally Posted by SugarPILL

why would that be a bother to you? Unfortunately for me I didn't read the full article before cut and pasting it... so if their was/is a viable subject i think it appropriate to let as many people know about it as possible, due to it also may effect them as well... the only fault was in my trusting someone else's point of view and out look on the matter before posting it, and I have already apologized for it... not sure what else I can do?

so why does that make me a ****er?

Originally Posted by dusted

The OP was overly dramatic IMO.

She does say something that struck me as odd:



She agreed with the funding of a $534 million project for NYC to achieve these goals but then disagrees with the funding of bicycle paths. (which would help achieve these same goals with a much smaller investment)

:dunno: just a thought

Originally Posted by kaiju-velo

]

The OP just can't brief an article, that said I'm glad the article was brought to my attention--
especially this ****e:

GWEN IFILL: Who is spending the money inappropriately?

MARY PETERS: Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. Some is being spent on museums, on restoring lighthouses, as I indicated.

Let's stop having a hissy fit over what the OP did or did not do right--the Secretary of Transportation is an idiot who exceeds the OP in her deficits by far. Maybe we should burn her in effigy. . .

Originally Posted by Vyava

A gas tax increase has been on the table in MN for a long time. The current MN republican party has generally opposed it for a long time and this is just shifting the blame off of themselves.

A prime example of an infrastructure investment in a bike path is the Diagonal Bikeway. It is a separate paved bike only path along side a very busy crosstown in Northeast Minneapolis. It was built as part of an upgrade of a primary area artery. It significantly shortened traffic build up by removing the rather large number of bike commuters from the traffic lane. Win win situation, but politicians spin things how they want and even though it directly improved traffic problems it "wasn't an infrastructer inprovement".

Spinning a wheel is much more fun than a sound bite.

Originally Posted by bbattle

MN had plenty of money for fixing roads and bridges; they don't need an additional tax. They wrongly determined this bridge was safe. No need for a tax increase when you've got surpluses. So let's just keep the politics out of ss/fg.

Originally Posted by Vyava

You obviously don't understand the situation here, nor do you understand how politically one sided your statments are.

Gas taxes and infrastructure funding is most likley going to determine most, if not all, of the upcoming MN elections.

Originally Posted by helloamerican

ok i love bikes. but i'd rather have bike lanes than bike paths. in that regard, i could give a **** less if there one less bike path leading to suburbia and one more wider safer street to ride to wherever you are in the city.