By the way... note that transit is now being proposed to be funded via the General Fund instead of the Transportation Fund. That means it won't be protected by the amendment.
I do fear that bicycling and walking may end up with the same fate. I would feel better about the amendment if it was a two-way wall: No raiding the Transportation Fund to supplement deficits in the General Fund AND no raiding the General Fund to pay for things in the Transportation budget. As an FYI, a number of states have a constitutional amendment saying the Transportation Fund can ONLY be used for roadways. This is a huge problem for states trying to have a more balanced transportation system. At my job, we have been working with a number of states that are up against this restriction. I am concerned that this amendment may be but a stepping stone to that restriction. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst State Smart Transportation Initiative www.ssti.us 608-263-9984 (o) [email protected] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:09 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
