U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-12-2015, 03:25 PM
 
554 posts, read 897,970 times
Reputation: 418

Advertisements

I'm really curious about why there is such a disconnect between our transportation system and the climate change issues that world governments are discussing.

As a cyclist, I understand why bike advocates have been working hard for years to get proper infrastructure for bike users.

Is that the only legitimate angle there is to providing infrastructure other than higher speed auto?

I ask this because I regularly see pavement being laid by TxDOT, without any regard for someone who isn't traveling at high speed in the main travel lanes. I'm not even talking about rural areas where it makes less sense. Mostly it's in suburban areas where using a bike, or electric bike (think 20mph, or moped class electric scooter is very practical. But because of a 500 foot section of roadway with no sidewalk and a 1 or 2 foot shoulder, it is unsafe to share with traffic going 50mph. On either end there is a wide shoulder, and routes with bike lanes or lower speed roads.

This bothers me because one of the easiest ways for people to reduce their impact on the environment is to not drive their automobile.

Aside from some select cities that are installing more bike infrastructure, I see the general transportation system as accepting of allowing a user to choose a low impact means of transportation. Are we all suppose to just switch to expensive electric cars?

I asked TxDOT on what their take is on climate change and what they are doing, if anything. It seems difficult to get a response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2015, 05:41 AM
 
39,194 posts, read 40,587,898 times
Reputation: 16081
Quote:
Originally Posted by veloman777 View Post
As a cyclist, I understand why bike advocates have been working hard for years to get proper infrastructure for bike users.

Is that the only legitimate angle there is to providing infrastructure other than higher speed auto?
To lay that pavement I pay fuel taxes(part of which goes too things like bike paths), sales tax on vehicles, licensing fees, registrations fees, title transfer fees, excise tax on tires, tickets used as huge revenue stream, help directly support a trillion plus industry paying huge amounts of taxes and if I park my car in Philadelphia about 1/4 of the fee I pay goes to the city and another 1/4 to the school district.

If you want improved infrastructure what I would suggest is you advocate raising those funds by applying taxes and fees too bicycles. Raise them and build to your hearts desire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2015, 05:36 PM
509
 
2,905 posts, read 4,047,335 times
Reputation: 3416
The real disconnect is with air travel.

For the typical middle class family that is YOUR major contribution to climate change. However, Boeing and air travel is central to the Establishment's personal entitlement program.

If you look at the science on climate change to date.....focus on the science, not computer models. There is a high probability that most climate change is caused by air travel. Google it.

Obama has opposed taxes on air travel to reduce its effect on "possible" man-caused climate change. Here in Washington state the Democrats just gave Boeing 9 BILLION dollars in tax payments.

So IF the Elites ever decide to tax or restrict air travel......you will know that climate change is for real. Until then, if they aren't willing to sacrifice their "perks" I am keeping my vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2015, 10:38 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
29,518 posts, read 54,080,580 times
Reputation: 30736
Any state Department of Transportation is obligated to do the work they can afford on their budget to keep traffic moving, not only for cars but trucks carrying goods. When it comes to climate change or bicycle priorities, that is up to the state legislature to approve and fund projects. At a more local level, the cities have the same situation but it's the mayor and city council calling the shots. Here in Seattle, for example, there have been many years of high priority to bicycles, now with bicycle traffic signals, road diets for bike lanes and improved safety, and higher parking rates and taxes. This is all causing more traffic congestion and causing more people to cross the bridge and do their shopping in eastside cities such as Bellevue with plenty of free parking. The result is more driving (fuel used and pollution).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top