In general, the mayors of our cities will do a better job using transportation funding in ways that we like if they are given "flexibility" as noted in one of the "Whereas's." Cities generally want to make multi-modal transporation and alternatives as easy and accessible as possible. People running cities know that they can't expand highways and still have a gity people want to live in.
When they say, "resources to combat congestion" they usually mean "let us get of their cars and on to transit." "Flexibility" generally means: "Let us use it to repair the roads we have and built walking, biking, and transity systems" The federal govenments inflexibility is usually at the root of "more roads". And I assure you, the US Conference of Mayors would be in total agreement with us that it bites that transit programs such as those recommended in Transport 2020 only get 50% support instea of 80%. I think they are worried that they will lose what flexibility they have now. Now.... as to those Texas Transport Institute numbers..... see this article in the Seattle Times.... the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) - one of the good guys on transportaiton policy (see: www.transact.org) said about the article, "Hey, we've known all along that these numbers are flawed." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134466768_tti03m.html At 09:08 PM 6/12/2002 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Of particular annoyance to me is: > >11. WHEREAS, a recent Texas Transportation Institution study >estimates the cost of congestion in just 68 urban areas >has grown from $21 billion in 1982 to $78 billion in >1999; and > >12. WHEREAS, the length of the congestion period increased >from 2 to 3 hours in 1982, to 5 or 6 hours by 1999; and >13. WHEREAS, it is essential that our cities have the >resources to combat increasing urban congestion; and > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
