Bike paths blamed for infrastructure failures?

Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...14/bike_paths/

damyth wrote:
Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...14/bike_paths/


Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of course.

vey wrote in :
Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of course.

Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

"george" wrote in message
...
vey wrote in :
Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
course.

Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

damyth wrote:
Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...14/bike_paths/

What do you expect from a Bush appointee? She's a Republican.

Greens wrote:
"george" wrote in message
...
vey wrote in :
Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
course.
Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

I think it was that Reagan was once again confusing reality with
something that was in a movie. He once saw a polluting tree in a film
and thought it was real.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:01:56 -0700, SMS
wrote:

Greens wrote:
"george" wrote in message
...
vey wrote in :
Yup. Bike paths made the bridge fall down. Everybody knows this, of
course.
Everyone in the Bush administration, at least. Those are the same folks
that
are still looking for the WMDs in Iraq.

During the Reagan administration they said that trees caused pollution. Now
it's bike paths cause infrastructure decay.

I think it was that Reagan was once again confusing reality with
something that was in a movie. He once saw a polluting tree in a film
and thought it was real.

Read it.
http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_trees.html

Fritz wrote:


Read it.
http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_2std_trees.html

"For example, biogenics are estimated to account for 22 percent of all
VOCs emitted in the woody Houston-Galveston area, but only 12 percent in
the arid El Paso area."

Geez, so *that's* why Houston stinks so much more than El Paso. That's
one of life's mysteries solved.

"damyth" wrote in message
ups.com...
Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...14/bike_paths/


Her exact comments:
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing
lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being
spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

and later...

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.

In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes back
to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER. I'd
love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad Ifill
didn't pick up on it.

"Jim Flom" wrote in message
news:GtcHi.51829$bO6.42298@edtnps89...
"damyth" wrote in message
ups.com...
Don't know if anyone here has come across this, but it's an
interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...14/bike_paths/


Her exact comments:
GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special
interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often?

MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are
museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails,
repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that
money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure.

and later...

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.

In the overall context, not a big point, but the fact that Peters comes
back to bike paths after stating it once indicates its an issue for HER.
I'd love to see the exact dollars spent on bike paths and trails. Too bad
Ifill didn't pick up on it.


Let's face it. We cyclists are selfish vermin stealing the very breath out
of motor's mouths.

We should be ashamed.