Anti-cycling House bill

"GRL" wrote:

Also bike paths are primarily for recreation. Which is fine,
except why should the federal tax-payer pay for you and me to have a place
to play on our bikes? Sounds like a local matter to me. Our local bike trail
was funded locally, as it should be.

And most car trips are optional and voluntary. So what? Lots of
cyclists use their bikes for transportation. Establishing why road
users are out on the roads is not a condition for their rights-of-way.

There are lots of limited-access motor roads where bikes, mopeds, and
pedestrians are not allowed. I see nothing wrong with providing some
thoroughfares that are closed to motor traffic.

If federal dollars pay for limited-access freeways, and they do, then
they should pay for sidewalks, bike lanes and paths, and greenways.
Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Chalo Colina

(Chalo) wrote:

Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Common suspicion, but dead wrong. The very rich pay most of the taxes
in the US. In 1999, the upper 1% paid over 36% of all the taxes in
the US for example.

The bottom 50% (fifty percent!) paid about 4%.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:55:05 GMT, Mark Hickey wrote:
(Chalo) wrote:
Fair's fair; we all pay taxes except the very rich.

Common suspicion, but dead wrong. The very rich pay most of the taxes

The suspicion, unfortunately, stems from the commonly heard news about tax-
breaks for them (god forbid they should keep some of their money!) and of
ways that they "avoid" paying taxes.

When you add it all up, the government gets more of their money than they
do. Consider a successful businessman; the government takes a big lop off
the money when the company gets it, then he decides to take some money out
of the company, so the government takes a big chunk of it as a dividend
tax, then he receives what's left, and the federal government takes 39% of
it in taxes, then the state takes another 10%; then he goes to buy, say, a
car with it, and pays 7% [in state of RI] sales tax, luxury tax [I don't
remember how much this is, or whether it was state or fed], and millions of
other taxes.

Believe me, "ultra-rich" people carry the weight of people like myself, and
I'm entirely aware of it. Punishing people for driving our economy is
stupid.

in the US. In 1999, the upper 1% paid over 36% of all the taxes in
the US for example.
The bottom 50% (fifty percent!) paid about 4%.

As you move your percentages around, you find that the top 5% paid over 90%
of taxes. Further, the top 5% aren't filthy rich, they're small business
owners who finally have made it past the struggling-to-pay-the-next-bill-
and-keep-the-electricity-on stage.

Do you fit that category, Mark?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

one of the six billion wrote:
[snip]
It's true that roadways are the only cycling facilities needed, however
without specific federal funds devoted to bicycling and pedestrian use,
roadways are not built nor maintained to accommodate safe passage for
anything but large amounts of fast moving cars.

Well .... while roadways in certain localities are sufficient for
cycling, the roadways in many localities are just to dangerous. Another
case of YMMV.

I do agree that roadways are not built nor maintained to accommodate
cyclists. Just take a look at the 3 feet or so of a street closest to
the curb: mixture of sand, rocks, glass, crumbly asphalt ...
you-name-it. Just yesterday I carted a push broom and machete to a
certain stretch of (urban) Town road that I cycle daily, whacked
branches and cleared piles of rocks, sand, and broken asphalt. A cop
actually stopped and asked "what the heck" I thought I was doing.

Rick Onanian wrote:

As you move your percentages around, you find that the top 5% paid over 90%
of taxes. Further, the top 5% aren't filthy rich, they're small business
owners who finally have made it past the struggling-to-pay-the-next-bill-
and-keep-the-electricity-on stage.

The figures I have (for the 1999 federal tax year) show the top 5%
paid "only" 55% of the tax - but I suspect they pay a lot more of the
"other taxes" (like real estate, luxury, etc.).

Do you fit that category, Mark?

Heh heh heh. If I said that I do, I'd be instantly labeled a
oppressor of the common man... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
Scott Munro wrote:

A) Bike paths are not a federal responsibility.

Absolutely. I can't imagine what it costs for the FEDS to build a
mile of bike path, but I'm pretty sure it's many times what it would
cost the local government (who also have the advantage of knowing the
area well enough to put in intelligent paths / lanes).

Urk . . . you guys have really got to educate yourselves about how
these things work.

Enhancements isn't exactly a new program--it's been in place across
the U.S. since 1992.

There are plenty of ham-handed and ineffecient federal programs to
attack. But Enhancements isn't one of them--it is on precisely the
OTHER end of the spectrum.

Every single one of the Enhancements projects is initiated and planned
by a local government--usually city or county, sometimes state.
Almost always they are the result of heavy citizen involvement at that
level.

Almost always, with Enhancements, it is citizens standing up and
saying, "We're sick of having our city streets turned into
auto-centric concrete jungles by federal transportation dollars. We
want our city to be designed for people." So they ask for some
landscaping, or sidewalks, or bike lanes, or a place for bicyclists
and pedestrians to cross a freeway or river bridge. Or, god forbid, a
bike path.

If they live in a metro area of any size at all, they then submit
their proposals to a Metropolitan Planning Organization. There it
competes for funding against other projects submitted by other local
governments.

The criteria used by the MPO for ranking the projects is, again, to a
great degree a local matter with criteria established by local and
regional groups that (in my experience) and very responsive to citizen
input.

Tyically such projects have something like an 80/20 federal/local
split in funding.

One thing that seems to stick in the craw of hard-core cyclist types
is that many of the bicycle-related facilities that have been approved
are multi-use paths.

But that isn't because of some E-V-I-L federal mandate. It is simply
because local citizens have stood up on their hind legs and demanded
them.

If YOU want something different, then stand up you YOUR hind legs
(you've got some, haven't you?) and demand something different of your
local governments.

The federal mandate is pretty broad. It simply sets aside a certain
amount of money, with the stipulation that it can be used for
Transportation Enhancement projects. Among the possible projects are
bicycle facilities and bicycle safety and education.

If the Enhancements set-aside is removed, and the Enhancements money
is returned to the general transportation pot, you can bet your bottom
dollar that most states will spend 0% of that general pot on bicycle
facilities or bicycle safety and education.

That was exactly the case in Missouri before Enhancements came
along--and MoDOT even tried to continue their "0% for bicycles, 0% for
pedestrians" policy after Enhancements was in place (thank heavens,
they lost THAT battle . . . )

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.mobikefed.org

x-no-archive:yes


snip
If the Enhancements set-aside is removed, and the Enhancements money
is returned to the general transportation pot, you can bet your bottom
dollar that most states will spend 0% of that general pot on bicycle
facilities or bicycle safety and education.

That was exactly the case in Missouri before Enhancements came
along--and MoDOT even tried to continue their "0% for bicycles, 0% for
pedestrians" policy after Enhancements was in place (thank heavens,
they lost THAT battle . . . )

--Brent


I agree with most of what you said, except for the part about the public
demanding to use the bike paths and how bicyclists should "take them back."
The problem with that is that when somebody wants to get rid of these
"multi-use paths", the paths are called "bike paths---and why should
somebody pay for my recreation choices!" They aren't called "multi-use
paths" that a large part of the public uses to walk, stroll, skate, run,
push a stroller, walk the dogs, etc. paths. Only the bicycle people get the
blame--it's called marginalization. If the people who don't want the bike
paths can make it seem as if "only" the elitist bicyclists will benefit,
then the funding is easier to do away with. And that is what is happening.
That makes it seem as if a much, much smaller portion of the public wants
these paths.

Pat in TX

On 25 Jul 2003 13:57:47 -0700, Brent Hugh wrote:
There are plenty of ham-handed and ineffecient federal programs to
attack. But Enhancements isn't one of them--it is on precisely the
OTHER end of the spectrum.

Every single one of the Enhancements projects is initiated and planned
by a local government--usually city or county, sometimes state. Almost
always they are the result of heavy citizen involvement at that
level.

Maybe it's different in Montana, but in Massachusetts (did I spell that
right?) where I do government roofing contracts, the bike paths are put
up for bid in the same inefficient system I've mentioned in one or two
other messages in this thread, even if it's by a local government for a
small town.

important info snipped
--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu
www.mobikefed.org
--
Rick Onanian

What do you expect with a totally REPUNGNANTan administration?

May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris

Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

On 25 Jul 2003 16:09:30 -0700, Chalo wrote:
income of $200K or more. Lots of idle wealthy can grow their fortunes
by millions a year and not draw that kind of actual income. I know

When they draw income, they'll be taxed on it. Either way, any time
money moves, it gets taxed (with some exceptions).

If you think the rich pay their fair share, then you've either been
sold a bill of goods by the Republicans, or you have a screwy notion
of what their fair share ought to be.

Wealthy people that I know should get your sweetie's accountant. The
ones that I know pay more than they keep...this includes the ones who
are only modestly wealthy -- live in a comfortable house, drive a
comfortable car, send their kids to college, and have nothing left
over. It does get worse as you get more money, no matter how your
accountant saves you taxes; either way, the money comes out sooner or
later, and it's proportionally much more than it should be.

On the other end of the spectrum, witness my aunt. In one recent year,
she spent part of the year disabled, and didn't make a much wage the
rest of the year. She filed her taxes, following the directions as
normal, doing everything proper, not requesting anything special. The
result was that the government refunded her some $5,000 more than she
paid in!

I wouldn't ask that it be taken from her; she needs it. My father
already helps her a lot, but it's tough. However, to say that
the "rich" aren't paying their "fair share", and that the money is
all coming out of the "poor working class people"'s paychecks, is
entirely wrong.



The real problem is overspending, anyway; too much comes out of my
paycheck, which is strong compared to my peers, but too weak to buy
a house or start a family (or even rent a damn apartment).

Too much comes from the people trying to raise a family.

Too much comes from the aforementioned wealthy people.

Too much comes from the "filthy rich" people (god forbid they should
have the money that they, or maybe their parents worked for).

Damn near everybody, except the really hard-up people, pay too much;
and you certainly can't ask those really hard-up people to starve
just so we can finance [insert just about anything here].

However...that's the nature of this country. Taxes are even worse
elsewhere, conditions are worse elsewhere, corruption is worse
elsewhere. [By 'elsewhere', I don't mean 'everwhere else', I just
mean lots of other places.] We live with it, we live on, we do the
best we can, and we try hard.

That all said...I enjoy multi-use paths, bicycle lanes, and so on;
and I'm going to email my politicians about it...just as soon as I
get some time [maybe if I didn't spend so much writing on newsfroups!]


Chalo Colina
--
Rick Onanian