My understanding is that the second half of the "no raiding the transportation fund" is that transit will be taken out of "transportation." So it would be all highways and it would be "no raiding the highway fund."
Those who said, Matt, that you were making stuff up when you said that "a little birdie told you" that the budget would hack bicycle transportation, owe you an apology. They were delusional to think otherwise. Al >> That's the problem, Matt. You've been "hammering" to advance a partisan >> agenda, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with bicycling > > > I'd love to know how Mr. Hauda translated > > "message that does not resonate with Republicans" > > into > > "partisan agenda, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with > bicycling". > > Here is what I am going to continue to hammer on: It is great that the > Bike Fed is working to advance bicycling - if only they could produce a > compelling argument for it that resonated with Republicans who control > our state budget process. > > (I can't wait to see how that gets spun into a proof of another personal > failing on my part.) > > By the way, I see the Bike Fed supports the Constitutional Amendment > protecting a fund that our Republican leaders clearly intend to be spent > exclusively on facilities for motorists. Any chance you could back off > on that support until the state includes bicycling facilities in the > projects receiving money from that fund? > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
