Bicycles are not a form of transportation
I doubt that laws prohibiting money to be spent on new construction until
everything existing is up to standard would work. First, standards would be
downgraded to allow them to be built. (This trick is already being used, the
Minnesota bridge was judged borderline acceptable for years). Second, money
is fungible, so that other money would be used for new construction instead,
money that could otherwise go to transit, water supplies, schools, etc.
(This trick is already being used, too.)
Although it is almost impossible to get through Congress, a better solution
would be to give federal funds to Metropolitan Planning Associations instead
of to State governments.
From: Walter Hook <whook@...>
Date: 2007/09/17 Mon PM 02:17:04 CDT
Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: Bicycles are not a form of transportation
This is an oversimplification of a complex debate on the hill. The stupid
comment about bike paths not withstanding, I am glad she is criticizing
earmarks, most of which are road pork. She has been pushing for more
tolling and supportive of congestion charging, (fed support is key to our
chances for nyc congestion charges, and democratic pork politicians like
Oberstar and road lobby stalwarts like highway and transit subcommiteee
chair democrat de fazio of Oregon tried to kill it. Oberstar is great on
money for bike lanes but also presided over massive highway pork spending.
To me the solution is a fix it first law modeled in new jersey that would
restrict federal funding for new roads and bridges till the existing ones
are all in a state of good repair.